Connectictut Supreme Court sets accused rapist free because the *paraplegic* victim did not "fight b - Polidicks

BRIDGEPORT -- The state Supreme Court Monday threw out the conviction of a city man found guilty of sexually assaulting a severely handicapped woman. In a 4-3 decision, the high court ruled that despite evidence the 26-year-old woman cannot speak and has little body movement, there was no evidence she could not communicate her refusal to have sex with the defendant, Richard Fourtin Jr. As a result of the ruling, Fourtin goes free and cannot be tried for the case again. Fourtin's lawyer, Senior Assistant Public Defender Nicole Donzello, declined comment on the decision. In January 2008, the 28-year-old Fourtin was convicted by a jury here of attempted second-degree and fourth-degree sexual assault and sentenced to six years in prison for sexually assaulting the severely handicapped woman in the Success Village housing complex in late 2005. The woman, now 29, who in court only went by her initials, L.K., has severe cerebral palsy and cannot verbally communicate. She is so physically restricted that she is able to make motions only with her right index finger. In order for the woman to testify during the trial, a small video camera was placed over her and a tray affixed to her chair. On the tray, the prosecutor placed a board printed with the letters of the alphabet along with the words "yes" and "no" on top. After each question, the woman's left hand would push her right hand, index finger sticking out, across the board to either spell out a word or answer yes or no. It was an exhausting process that lasted four days. However, the defense argued that there was evidence the woman could communicate by biting, kicking, screaming and gesturing. They presented testimony at trial from a home health aide who said the woman would kick and groan if she didn't get food she wanted. The state Appellate Court later ruled she is not physically helpless under the state law in which a jury convicted Fourtin. The state then took an appeal to the Supreme Court. "We are not persuaded that the victim was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault," the high court ruled Monday. The three dissenting justices accused the majority of acting as a "13th juror," in the case and substituting their opinion for that of the jury. [B][url]http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Supreme-Court-sets-accused-rapist-free-3910077.php#ixzz28TWtSaJG[/url][/B] This is so fucking bullshit. Utterly disgusting. (not to mention that "not fighting back" doesn't make that kind of stuff not rape.)

[b]ANGRY[/b]

Imagine being the lawyer that had to defend that guy

This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever fucking heard.

Stupid as fuck.

snip

You know....its not the decision to let this guy go that angers me (though I'm still pretty fucking pissed off because of it.) Imagine the precedent this decision just set.

I'm still trying to figure out how the thought of raping her even came into his head? How can anyone look at a helpless disabled woman and have their thoughts veer towards sex? He should be locked up based on his mental health alone.

He looks like Mike Myers [IMG]http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/15/36/31/3532371/3/628x471.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101205141430/shrek/images/b/b0/Mike-myers.jpg[/IMG]

[I][B]ALL OF THE RAGE ON THE INTERNET IS INSUFFICIENT[/B][/I]

How the fuck is that okay, if she is not fighting back, it is not counted as rape. Whoever wrote that up is ripe for a one-way trip to the insane asylum.

Somebody should shoot him in the dick.

you know i always had faith that the supreme court would always do what is right and well that's gone now.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;37974791]you know i always had faith that the supreme court would always do what is right and well that's gone now.[/QUOTE] just to be clear this is the state supreme court, not the supreme court for the country.

So, this means that it's legal to rape someone in the state of Connectictut as long as they are unable to communicate their unwillingness? Or in other words, "It's not rape if they can't say no". gg connectictut, you dumbshits [editline]9th October 2012[/editline] No offense to non-dumbshit Connecticuters.

Looks like a credible source.

I AM INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BUT INCOHERENT RAGE RIGHT NOW!

And suddenly I'm not so freezing in my unheated home anymore. Thanks for making my blood boil, Connecticut's Supreme Court.

Fucking misogynist pieces of shit, should lose their fucking jobs.

I cant even comprehend how this is not rape when there is blatent proof. So its not rape if i knock someone out beforehand.

I can't find any legitimate sources on this, only tabloids and worse I guess the OP's source is the best it will be

the rule should be Yes means Yes, not No means No

[QUOTE=thisispain;37976307]the rule should be Yes means Yes, not No means No[/QUOTE] And if any shitmuncher wants to start an arguement about this, they can ride my cock. Sidesaddle.

how progressive is Connecticut? I was under the impression the East Coast was all super liberal, this looks like backwater middleville

[QUOTE=The Baconator;37976298]I can't find any legitimate sources on this, only tabloids and worse I guess the OP's source is the best it will be[/QUOTE] [url=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/]Think Progress[/url] covered it

[QUOTE=Habsburg;37976399][url=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/]Think Progress[/url] covered it[/QUOTE] that's a godawful source

[QUOTE=The Baconator;37976410]that's a godawful source[/QUOTE] It is not.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;37976052]I AM INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BUT INCOHERENT RAGE RIGHT NOW![/QUOTE] Hey, at least your posting.

That's it, moving back to Scotland.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37976307]the rule should be Yes means Yes, not No means No[/QUOTE] and "lack of any answer" is no