"This is bullshit, and sexual orientation IS a touchy enough subject that implications of homosexuality or any other type of sexual proclivity which are UNTRUE can create the same hardship as before AND WAY WAY more."
Why is it OK to create hardship for people who are gay but choose not to disclose their orientation, if the same hardship isn't OK for those who are heterosexual? Don't give me bullshit about the hardship being worse without backing it up otherwise it just sounds like homophobic rhetoric: Oh noes, you've got some gay on you, the horror. Newsflash, being falsely labelled as gay incurs at most as much hardship as actually being gay, unless the person falsely labelled also suffers as a result of their own homophobia.
Is finger penetration considered rape under federal and California law? Yes, explicitly stated in both.
Was a threat required for them to commit the act? No, but if it was implied then California has that covered.
Was warning given? No, ergo no consent or even chance to object.
Was force used? As much as was needed, in that the act was committed without warning.
Is there any difference between being unconscious (explicitly listed as a qualifier) and being violated without warning? Yes, in that being conscious she was able to fully experience 'not' being raped.
As for the defamation stuff, did you even read the article? Her lawyer explains it pretty explicitly.
"The TSA agent did not say that she would kill, beat or kidnap the woman if she did not submit to her search."
They didn't need to threaten her or hold her down because they were already in a position to commit the act. Which would seem to put the act under 'using force' anyway. Did she consent to being penetrated? No. Was she warned that she was going to be penetrated? No. Was a threat necessary for them to commit the act? No. How is it not rape even under federal law?
261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate,
arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a
reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used
in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a
governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position,
to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not
actually have to be a public official.
"Based on those conditions, it does not sound like rape is the appropriate charge to me."
Why not? Kansas law (which happened to be the first one I came across while searching), specifically identifies finger penetration as sexual intercourse and requires a warrant to be issued for the act to be considered exempt as a lawful body cavity search. In Kansas, at least, this seems to be quite plainly rape. I will try and find the specific law if I can find the specific state the incident took place in.
United States Federal Law [Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 47X, Section 920, Article 120] defines rape as:
(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by—
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
'Think about it. Does a rape victim just stand there silently and think "I'll complain about it later". No, they'll scream and shout, because of the trauma of the incident'
I am troubled by that statement. Rape victims are not required to scream and shout to be considered legitimate. Whether they scream or not, it's still rape. There are plenty of reasons why a victim might choose not to resist rape beyond denying consent, not least of all being fear of making the situation worse.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
"but I am simply establishing the facts that are in place."
I believe the point you missed was that non-public forum is a distinctly different phrase from private property. I don't know if funeral grounds are really private property, but if they are then that is wholly different from being a non-public forum.
"A choke hold is a fairly legitimate move to ensure physical compliance"
If you're talking about air chokes then I was under the impression that they were a big fat no-no for American police (as they should be). For dealing with passive aggressive protesters I would cringe at any type of choke being employed.
"Btw, this was organized by a veteran. If you didn't or don't have the balls to risk your life for your country you should probably fuck off."
It is perhaps fitting that in your rage you chose a wholly misogynistic metaphor for your statement. I'd more likely rate someone willing to risk their life for one stranger in another country than someone willing to risk their life for their own country. The disrespect you show for gender serves to emphasise your apparent lack of perspective. If you're going to worship heroes then choose individuals, not careers.