Video tape rape trial [Archive] - Tactics Arena Community Forums

Pinkie TDP

03-08-2006, 08:37 AM

I assume some of you have heard about this, but for anyone who hasn't, I'll give a one paragraph summary. If you want to read about it more, here's the story in the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060228misbrenner,0,5469749.story?track=mostemailed link).

Several years ago there was a party in which a girl got drunk and was raped by several guys and it was video taped. When the girl found out about it, she filed a law suit against a group of people who were believed to be the rapists. As far as I know, one of the people were found innocent because they couldn't determine if it him on the video without reasonable doubt. Another one fled the country and as far as I know, they still aren't sure where he is. Adrian Missbrenner fled the country then was forced to come back to stand trial. He and his lawyer offered the victim a plea bargain prior to the trial which involved significant jail time for Missbrenner. The victim turned it down because she wanted him to really pay for what he did, however, he was found innocent. So he's off completely.

So what do you guys think about this? I think he's guilty, especially based on the fact that he was offering a plea bargain with jail time. They were expecting it to be an open and shut case and find him guilty because he was like, the main rapist in the video.

It happened in the city I live in so it's pretty big news over here - not too sure how big it is in other parts of the nation. Just wondering what you guys think.

x-useme

03-08-2006, 08:50 AM

Wow, that really sucks.
As for that one guy, from your description, he definately sounds guilty.

Just wondering though. Was that girl you? O_O

S_K_O_F

03-08-2006, 08:54 AM

Wow, that really sucks.
As for that one guy, from your description, he definately sounds guilty.

Just wondering though. Was that girl you? O_O
joking or not...that was an innapropriate question. You are lucky I don't neg you.

I am not sure how I feel about this. I would have to see the tape. It is his word against hers. Maybe he raped her, maybe he didn't. I want to say that this girl should have controlled her alcohol better, but then I remember what it is like to be a teenager and how hard that can be.

I really don't know what to say.

kegsworth

03-08-2006, 09:19 AM

I'm with SKOF on this one, I don't wanna sound like a perve, but I'd have to see it to know. His word against hers.

That's one reason girls shouldn't go partying with guys they don't know.

endless

03-08-2006, 09:36 AM

Yeah, rape is not a thing to joke about. But back to the topic, i beleive that is just wrong. Loop holes in the system of justice. And laywer getting paid to take advantage of them. Its not right! This girl had more evidence than most have! And still couldn't bring the rapeist to justice! Just to show how bad our judicial system still is...

Xenon

03-08-2006, 09:50 AM

I am with kegs and skof on this.

But it remains to be seen that the fact he fled the country before a court hearing actually makes him look pretty guilty already, with or without proof that he did it.

Hatchet Klown

03-08-2006, 09:55 AM

If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit!

For him to be found innocent in a criminal proceeding, all 12 jurors must have agreed. Otherwise it would be a mistrial. For all 12 jurors to agree either he was innocent, or the prosecution just sucked ass!

Regardless, this is our legal system, and until we find a better one, I stand by it.

Morning Star

03-08-2006, 10:22 AM

and until we find a better one, I stand by it.

You say that now, but what if this was your sister or your girlfriend...you'd be singing a different tune. Rape is fuking retarded and anyone that does it or anything similiar to it needs to dealt with. I have no sympathy for people like that. I would have found there asses guilty.

Edit: That story is messed up with all the crap it says was done to her...i do agree to one point about it being a big mistake to get drunk and be with those type of people what was she thinking?

battle composed

03-08-2006, 10:36 AM

It's pretty intense when it comes right down to their word, her word and a video which doesn't show if it's consensual sex or rape. What's worse is that she was too wasted to remember the night.

Although no one will want to be jailed/accused for something they are innocent of, there may be unknown factors which led to him [and his pals] running away and then asking for a plea bargain. It is pretty tough for males to get out of rape/molest charges. A female could whimsically yell, "MOLEST" right in the middle of the street and get a male arrested. That said, I think he's guilty too.

Justice is blind. And sometimes, it really is.

In opening remarks, Deno said the woman "made two mistakes: she got drunk and placed herself in the hands of the wrong people."

Don't put yourself there. We aren't really living in fairytale land where everyone lives happily ever after.

theAdmiralty

03-08-2006, 10:41 AM

It ain't rape when she knows she wants it;)

JesusCraig

03-08-2006, 10:46 AM

Memnarch

03-08-2006, 10:56 AM

Wow! That really sucks for her. I am sorry that happened. A friend of mine got raped and we knew who did it. That guy got fucked up so bad he moved. On top of the rape he also gave her herpes. In this we learn that rape is not a one time thing. The victims often are traumatized beyond repair and often find it hard to fully trust a guy again. Those who rape need to go to prison and be sodomized by the biggest cocked guy there. Then maybe they will learn. I grew up by the old eye for an eye saying. That's why he got his ass kicked beyond repair. As far as I know he still cant breathe right. Good riddance in my opinion.

kegsworth

03-08-2006, 11:38 AM

Anger does well-up inside of me when I hear of people getting raped, and the predator get's off clean. I had a girlfriend who was raped in a grocery store by the vendor, and though they had it on tape, he got away with it.

I got dumped by her a few weeks later, because in her words: " I was betrayed by a friendly guy", was eating at her. She viewed me as a friendly guy and wanted nothing to do with me.

I see the guy that did it every now and again, and every time I do, I wait for him to breathe in the wrong direction so I can tear into him.

He hasn't yet.

Memnarch

03-08-2006, 12:02 PM

Why wait? Grab a snickers and beat his ass with it. No one would get away with raping my girl. I prefer the direct approach. He gets his ass kicked. And thats final.

~mem

Aro23r

03-08-2006, 12:09 PM

In this we learn that rape is not a one time thing.

That's essentially the basis behind suing on the basis of emotional distress, too.

kegsworth

03-08-2006, 12:09 PM

Why wait? Grab a snickers and beat his ass with it. No one would get away with raping my girl. I prefer the direct approach. He gets his ass kicked. And thats final.

~mem

I would, but I threatened him publicly and if I touch him, it's his word against mine, and we all know how that works. :dry:

It's documented, I'd have to have proof.

Memnarch

03-08-2006, 12:16 PM

kegsworth

03-08-2006, 12:31 PM

It's just too shady.

Good idea though.

Office_Shredder

03-08-2006, 12:39 PM

Here's what ya do. Do something to really piss him off. Like bone his mom or something. Then when he comes to confront you, talk enough shit to get him to punch you. That's when you beat HIM up. Self-defense. Am I the only one who knows how to get away with hurting someone? Geez. Thats what that self-defense law is there for. To abuse the system.

Unfortunately, self defense laws don't cover excessive beating...

while you could argue you got caught up in the heat of the moment, I doubt it will work against the evidence of, after hitting you once, your "assaulter" got knocked unconcious with a concussion and multiple broken bones :rolleyes:

Megabyte

03-08-2006, 12:46 PM

In regards to the "offering a plea bargain so must be guilty" line, I encourage you to rethink that.

Without commenting on this specific case, I'll simply say that trials are long, expensive, and extremelly stressful events. If they go public they can ruin the lives of all parties involved.

Offering a plea bargain and taking the time in the cell is actually often a preference. There have been cases where people have gone up to trial for such sexual assault cases and, even with being declared innocent and the charges being totally fabricated, their lives and reputations are totally shattered.

Just saying its a bad standard to set.

Aro23r

03-08-2006, 12:48 PM

Funny thing is she'll still win millions in the civil suit.

Memnarch

03-08-2006, 12:51 PM

Good point Aro. And Office_Shredder, you are right about the excessive beating part. I think he could get away with a regular asswhoopin for that guy though.

kegsworth

03-08-2006, 12:58 PM

Maybe just one good punch to the throat in a secluded area, where a dog might just randomly attack him while he's begging for air on the ground. Seems plausible enough for me.

Now for the planning . . .

Memnarch

03-08-2006, 01:01 PM

Thats the spirit kegs!

Pinkie TDP

03-08-2006, 01:39 PM

Pinkie, his offer of a plea bargain is hardly evidence for his guilt (it's actually not court room evidence at all, and it's not really non-judicial evidence either) there are numerous factors which could lead to him offering a plea bargain. If he THOUGHT he would lose even though he was innocent, he'd do much the same thing.

Of course it's not evidence, I never said it was. I said this was a large part of why I believe he is guilty. People offer plea bargains in two situations:

1.) They're guilty and they know they will be found guilty and they try to negotiate a lesser sentence in exchange for not having to go to trial and leave it up to a judge and jury.
2.) They're innocent but know that no matter what they'll be found guilty and again try to negotiate.

Based on the other information (fleaing the country, she was found naked in his house, he was in the video, another friend plead guilty to taping it, etc) I feel like it is choice #1... but not solely because he offered a plea bargain.

Endless and morning, you missed the point, he didn't get off cause he was the rapist and theres a problem with the judicial system, he got off because he was NOT a rapist. You can't send people to jail for something they didn't do and claim your version of justice is better.

So you're saying our court system is completely perfect and no one has gone to jail for something they didn't do or that no one has gotten off when they did do something? There's so much more to it and it's not as clear cut as you're trying to make it sound. All the defense had to do was instill one shread of reasonable doubt. They could have found his DNA on her, could have a video of him doing it, have witnesses and testimonial, but if there's one shread of doubt in one of the jurors, he could be found not guilty.

In regards to the "offering a plea bargain so must be guilty" line, I encourage you to rethink that.

Without commenting on this specific case, I'll simply say that trials are long, expensive, and extremelly stressful events. If they go public they can ruin the lives of all parties involved.

Offering a plea bargain and taking the time in the cell is actually often a preference. There have been cases where people have gone up to trial for such sexual assault cases and, even with being declared innocent and the charges being totally fabricated, their lives and reputations are totally shattered.

Just saying its a bad standard to set.

Same thing I said to JesusCraig... it's not the sole reason why I feel the way I do. However, it does help strengthen my belief in why I believe he's guilty. If the only evidence I heard was that he offered a plea bargain, I wouldn't feel this way. I would be undecided. It's the combination of the plea bargain and everything else I have heard that leads me to believe he's guilty.

Aro23r

03-08-2006, 01:47 PM

They could have found his DNA on her, could have a video of him doing it, have witnesses and testimonial, but if there's one shread of doubt in one of the jurors, he could be found not guilty.

Or a glove, because this is a wookie...... It has nothing to do with what's at hand here.

Office_Shredder

03-08-2006, 02:44 PM

So you're saying our court system is completely perfect and no one has gone to jail for something they didn't do or that no one has gotten off when they did do something? There's so much more to it and it's not as clear cut as you're trying to make it sound. All the defense had to do was instill one shread of reasonable doubt. They could have found his DNA on her, could have a video of him doing it, have witnesses and testimonial, but if there's one shread of doubt in one of the jurors, he could be found not guilty.

From reading other articles about this, I get the impression that the video showed her giving consent.... not very damaging evidence. DNA would obviously be useless.... no one is denying that she had sex with him, so there's no need to prove that. And there were witnesses and testimonial that supported her giving consent

Megabyte

03-08-2006, 03:12 PM

consent or not aside, alcohol being involved also clouds the matter

I've a friend who was raped, and had proof of it, but the guilty party is still free today because there was alcohol involved in the matter. Typically, its a LOT harder to make your case as consent/non-consent requires you to be of healthy body and mind, which your not while intoxicated.

Not saying its a good or fair thing, in fact I find it a horrible cop-out on a lot of aspects of justice (bitter about it too). But its a reality.

Memnarch

03-08-2006, 03:20 PM

I've a friend who was raped, and had proof of it, but the guilty party is still free today because there was alcohol involved in the matter.

Thats bullshit. I really hate it when crimes go unpunished. Thats why vigilante justice appeals to me so much. Why cant we go back to random hangings and shootings like in the westerns? On second thought, scratch that. I probably deserve to be hung for some of the stuff I have done. Namely, random beatings of guilty parties.

Office_Shredder

03-08-2006, 03:34 PM

Thats bullshit. I really hate it when crimes go unpunished. Thats why vigilante justice appeals to me so much. Why cant we go back to random hangings and shootings like in the westerns?

You mean hanging the nearest black guy and calling it a day?

There's a reason we dropped that system

R G

03-08-2006, 04:08 PM

Well it sounds like he was guilty, but I thought that OJ Simpson would have been found guilty too.

Just because he was not found guilty does not make him innocent either....applies in both cases.

Pinkie TDP

03-08-2006, 04:23 PM

From reading other articles about this, I get the impression that the video showed her giving consent.... not very damaging evidence. DNA would obviously be useless.... no one is denying that she had sex with him, so there's no need to prove that. And there were witnesses and testimonial that supported her giving consent

That wasn't in any way the point I was trying to make. I didn't say there was all that evidence in this case. I was giving an example, unrelated to the case, of how just a little bit of reasonable doubt could allow a person to get off free.

007 GOD

03-08-2006, 04:27 PM

America's justice system sucks in my opinion.

Megabyte

03-08-2006, 05:40 PM

America's justice system sucks in my opinion.

if you can do better, write you congressman

Liquid Swordsman

03-08-2006, 07:41 PM

I wonder if the supposed rape movie is on the internet somewhere. I bet it's not as bad as they say it is, or the kids who filmed it are just retarded.

"Prosecutors allege that the videotape first shows another defendant, Burim Berezi of Brookfield, having sex with the woman, then it shows Missbrenner. They say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen."

Nevermind, just read that part.

Aro23r

03-08-2006, 08:04 PM

Well it sounds like he was guilty, but I thought that OJ Simpson would have been found guilty too.

Just because he was not found guilty does not make him innocent either....applies in both cases.

That's why when the jury reads their verdict, it's either "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty or not guilty" ... Not Guilty or Innocent.

FryLock

03-08-2006, 08:08 PM

Well, as a person who actually deals with this kind of stuff as a career, let me chip in my two cents.

First off, I'm pro-prosecution. That means I want to be the one going after the bad guys. Having said that though, I think the people who've posted here saying "its terrible that the guy's lawyer got him off, why are people paid to do that," are way off base.

We have an adversarial system of justice. It (in theory) tries to assure that only the guilty will be punished. Hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. We also guarantee the accused the right to competent, effective, and zealous counsel for criminal charges.

Think about what the system would be like if people could just be railroaded through. Sure, perhaps it would save some time with those that are clearly guilty - but what about the grey areas? The constitutional protections? When a defense lawyer suppresses a piece of evidence because the police violated the guy's constitutional rights, that protects society at large.

If defense lawyers weren't zealous and capable, the idea of your freedom from unreasonable search and seizure would be just that - an idea, not an actual protection.

The same goes for criminal trials. The accused deserves competent representation. He deserves to be able to prove his case. The State is held to a higher burden because of the fear of convicting an innocent person.

No, I'm not saying the system is perfect. Some innocents are, unfortunately, convicted, and some culpable parties go free. But this is what we have to work with.

I think it's important to realize WHY certain lawyers do the jobs they do. Even though I could never myself defend an accused rapist, I hope that when I prosecute the guy, he has a great lawyer. That way, when the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, I'll know that the case really was proved.

In that vein, juries are smarter than you may think. They can often puzzle through numerous facts and reach a sensible conclusion. I don't know the exact facts of this case, but the jury must have had some basis for its verdict.

It is unforunate that an accused rapist is now free - but a jury of his peers clearly thinks that is the right decision.

Rape cases are tough. I'm NOT saying this guy deserves to be free, or that he doesn't. I'm merely saying that he deserved all the legal representation he got.

I know there are some shady defense lawyers out there - and they make it worse for everyone else. But for people to make blanket statements about how defense lawyers are worthless people, only looking to get paid for getting criminals off - you are very, VERY wrong.

Memnarch

03-08-2006, 08:32 PM

You mean hanging the nearest black guy and calling it a day?

There's a reason we dropped that system

Noooo! Not racist at all. Dont misinterpret that. I meant if someone committed murder with witnesses they would be hung. That probably does not pertain to this discussion, but the point is, justice was harsh and swift. Taught people a lesson.

Office_Shredder

03-08-2006, 09:15 PM

Noooo! Not racist at all. Dont misinterpret that. I meant if someone committed murder with witnesses they would be hung. That probably does not pertain to this discussion, but the point is, justice was harsh and swift. Taught people a lesson.

First, being killed doesn't teach you a lesson.

The problem is that someone could claim to be a "witness", and that harsh and swift justice would come down on the wrong side. Neighbor refuses to sell his land so you can build a house? You just saw him kill three men! Local barkeep won't sell you alcohol because your tab is too high? He broke into your house and stole ten thousand dollars! Everything just works so much better

Shaman

03-08-2006, 09:17 PM

No offense, but for every one of these... there is undoubtedly one of these:

--------------
http://www.wesh.com/news/7630418/detail.html
ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Orange County Sheriff's Office just announced that it has arrested the woman who claimed she was raped by several men who work at Walt Disney World. They say the woman made up the story, and that the sex was consensual.

Orange County Sex Crimes Investigator Detective Phillip Graves has determined that Sunde's account of the incident was not factual and that the sexual encounters were, in fact, consensual. The suspects in the alleged attacks were cooperative with the investigation from its onset to the point of providing a video tape of the incident, which helped corroborate their account of the incident.
---------------

I would almost feel compelled to get signed agreements and video footage of all sexual encounters if I were of dating age again. Lest I end up in court due to a persons regret at a later date.

**edited to satisfy Pinkie**
Guilty people should go to jail. Whether they are guilty of rape, or guilty of intentionally filing false accusations.

The intent of my post is clear, and it is not to imprison victims who's rapist are not adequately prosecuted.

It is to create a punishment loop for intentional false accusation, when there was in fact no crime committed and there is adequate proof to inversely convict the accuser.
**end edit**

007 GOD

03-08-2006, 09:22 PM

if you can do better, write you congressman

have. they dont listen.

AlabamaBoy

03-08-2006, 09:44 PM

We all know what I think about rapists...
...they should be castrated and hung up by their ankles, I know its a little too forgiving....
but at least it proves the point. If i was there and saw a date rape none of those guys would still be around. My baseball bat is very nice. It has a red finish now(recently added) i think the splatter effect is very nice.

Pinkie TDP

03-08-2006, 09:52 PM

No offense, but for every one of these... there is undoubtedly one of these:

--------------
http://www.wesh.com/news/7630418/detail.html
ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Orange County Sheriff's Office just announced that it has arrested the woman who claimed she was raped by several men who work at Walt Disney World. They say the woman made up the story, and that the sex was consensual.

Orange County Sex Crimes Investigator Detective Phillip Graves has determined that Sunde's account of the incident was not factual and that the sexual encounters were, in fact, consensual. The suspects in the alleged attacks were cooperative with the investigation from its onset to the point of providing a video tape of the incident, which helped corroborate their account of the incident.
---------------

I would almost feel compelled to get signed agreements and video footage of all sexual encounters if I were of dating age again. Lest I end up in court due to a persons regret at a later date.

Guilty people should go to jail.
False Accusers should get the same sentance their would be be assailants would have been subject too. Too bad the accused could get YEARS if wrongly convicted PLUS sex offender registration, while the Liar will get days (if anything) if they are found out.

I get your point and I do think it's absolutely horrible to wrongly accuse someone for this, I don't think it's fair to assume that if he is found not guilty, she must be lying and should get jail time.

The other problem with that is if you do put those kind of restrictions on law suits and those kinds of risks, it deters people from filing lawsuits when they SHOULD file one, because of the risks that are at stake.

AlabamaBoy

03-08-2006, 10:22 PM

In sweet home alabam we dont rely on the law to deal with rapists we do it ourselves... :butcher:

Megabyte

03-08-2006, 10:31 PM

In sweet home alabam we dont rely on the law to deal with rapists we do it ourselves... :butcher:

you're making it really hard for me not to make some "Deliverance" jokes

AlabamaBoy

03-08-2006, 10:34 PM

Byte me.

Lord Sesshomaru

03-09-2006, 12:44 AM

Rape is no laughing matter, unless youre raping a clown.

Office_Shredder

03-09-2006, 06:24 AM

I get your point and I do think it's absolutely horrible to wrongly accuse someone for this, I don't think it's fair to assume that if he is found not guilty, she must be lying and should get jail time.

The other problem with that is if you do put those kind of restrictions on law suits and those kinds of risks, it deters people from filing lawsuits when they SHOULD file one, because of the risks that are at stake.

The accuser doesn't always get arrested just because the defendant is found not guilty. It's only when the accuse is obviously committing fraud, i.e. knows that no crime was committed, and pursues the case anyway. In the case of more questionable circumstances, like the one posted above, it sounds like the girl really did think she was raped, so there was no obvious intent to defraud the sytstem

Pinkie TDP

03-09-2006, 06:35 AM

The accuser doesn't always get arrested just because the defendant is found not guilty.

Obviously...

It's only when the accuse is obviously committing fraud, i.e. knows that no crime was committed, and pursues the case anyway. In the case of more questionable circumstances, like the one posted above, it sounds like the girl really did think she was raped, so there was no obvious intent to defraud the sytstem

I wasn't talking about perjury, I saying it would be a flaw in the system if you sentence every plantiff who loses their case to jail time. I was not talking about this or any case in particular. It was all hypothetical.

Shaman

03-10-2006, 07:51 PM

I don't think it's fair to assume that if he is found not guilty, she must be lying and should get jail time.

I never said that. I said if a person is found to have falsely accused another, they should receive the same maximum sentance as the person falsely accused.

That is different than saying that if a person is found innocent, then the accuser is automatically a liar.

In the case I stated, there was video evidence that clearly illustrated that the woman clearly understood that she was not in a rape situation, yet she decided to press false charges.

In cases where a person 'is' potentially raped with no evidence to the contrary and the defendant is found innocent, there would be no case towards false accusation on behalf of the Plaintiff.

There is a distinct difference. Where video evidence creates no doubt as to the situation and the intent of the accuser, then they should serve the same sentance as those that would have had the punishment exacted if they had been found guilty.

Pinkie TDP

03-11-2006, 01:51 PM

I never said that. I said if a person is found to have falsely accused another, they should receive the same maximum sentance as the person falsely accused.

That is different than saying that if a person is found innocent, then the accuser is automatically a liar.

In the case I stated, there was video evidence that clearly illustrated that the woman clearly understood that she was not in a rape situation, yet she decided to press false charges.

In cases where a person 'is' potentially raped with no evidence to the contrary and the defendant is found innocent, there would be no case towards false accusation on behalf of the Plaintiff.

There is a distinct difference. Where video evidence creates no doubt as to the situation and the intent of the accuser, then they should serve the same sentance as those that would have had the punishment exacted if they had been found guilty.

The problem with your logic is this:

What you exactly stated was "Guilty people should go to jail.
False Accusers should get the same sentance their would be be assailants would have been subject too". If a woman brings an accusation against a man and he's found not guilty, then that's a false accusation in the eyes of the court. So in any case a woman doesn't win, she would bring forth a false accusation in the eyes of the court.