Roastbusters

**Big Dog** · 20th March 2015, 16:47

Are your answers different?
Would they be different answering about your teen son?
Why?

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Big Dog** · 20th March 2015, 16:52

Originally Posted by Akzle

well, no. Because legally, you need a penis to rape.

Not entirely true. People have been successfully prosecuted for rape with an object. Including women.
Women have also been charged with raping men. Although, it seems there is a much higher burden of proof to even get the police to stop laughing.
Many still see an erect penis as consent.
I can tell you from experience it is not.
I can also tell you if a woman is determined enough she will likely get what she wants and even with alcohol force involved the first hurdle is still "how did she manage that if you weren't willing?"

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Big Dog** · 20th March 2015, 16:54

Muddy subject indeed. I hope I never have to decide if someone is guilty or not on this subject.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**mada** · 20th March 2015, 16:54

Were adequate follow-up enquiries conducted and positive lines of enquiry pursued?

47. In three of the six cases assigned to CPT staff for further enquiries to be conducted, the young women did not wish to further participate in the investigation process after providing preliminary statements to Police. It is accepted that, without the cooperation of the young women, the ability of Police to proceed was hampered. However, the Authority considers that it remained incumbent upon the assigned CPT investigators to make the necessary follow-up enquiries. Indeed, Police policy states that “all reports of child abuse must be thoroughly investigated” even if the child or young person recants or parents/caregivers are reluctant to continue.

48. The Authority has determined that the failure to undertake basic investigative tasks resulted in a lack of sound and evidence-based decision-making in each case. In Case 2, for example, there is no evidence on the Police file, or from any other material collected during the Authority’s investigation, to indicate that enquiries were made to determine if any of the young men had a history with Police. Had this task been undertaken, Police would have identified that one of the young men had also been involved in Case 1, and should have then recognised the existence of a possible pattern of behaviour, supporting the need for a more rigorous and extensive Police response.

49. The same could be said for Case 3, where there was no evidence that the files relating to the previous two cases were reviewed. There was highly relevant material contained in these files, which would have assisted Police during this investigation and, in particular, during the suspect interviews. Further, a review of these earlier files may well have led to a recommendation for these cases to be reopened so that additional enquiries could be conducted.

50. More generally, in all those investigations that were conducted subsequent to Case 1, the failure of Police investigators to recognise, or consider the significance of, the involvement of these young men in the earlier cases was a common theme. This was the most significant failing identified in the Authority’s investigation.

Other examples of deficiencies in investigative practices involved the failure to:

obtain statements from witnesses, particularly those to whom the young women first disclosed the incident (known as ‘a recent complaint witness’);

attempt to speak to or take statements from all of the young men involved in the incident;

make any enquiries that might have corroborated or refuted any inconsistencies between accounts;

adequately consider the evidence in relation to consent issues (discussed in detail in paragraphs 80—86);

secure all available evidence, such as CCTV footage, cellular telephone data, and photographic and video images.

The Authority has reviewed the transcripts of these interviews, and considers that the preparation for, and the standard of, the interviews with the young men were unsatisfactory. It is evident that the officers conducting the interviews did not have the requisite knowledge to challenge certain details provided by the young men or to discuss some of the highly relevant evidence that was obtained during Officer D’s investigation. As this was the first occasion that any of the young men had been subject to a formal interview, this process was critical to the assessment phase of the investigation.

54. Of the six cases, the Authority considers that the investigation of Case 6, undertaken by Officer E, was the most inadequate and unsatisfactory. There is, in fact, no evidence on the Police file, or from any other material collected during the Authority’s investigation, that any investigation was undertaken into the initial incident responded to by Police or the incident involving the members of the ‘Roastbusters’ group. Information recorded by Officer E reveals that he had a poor understanding of the details and facts of case, and that his management of the file fell well short of the standard expected of a qualified and experienced detective

Good job boys....

How about this?

While the Authority accepts that Case 3 was the most thoroughly investigated of the files reviewed, the investigation report completed by Officer D contains a number of significant inaccuracies and assumptions. It is unbalanced in its assessment of, and reference to, the evidence gathered (such as interview material and text data). For example, Officer D’s analysis of the young woman’s immediate response to the offending was tenuous and made unfounded assumptions regarding her “mindset” and motivations by placing significant weight on the text messages that were sent by others. In fact, cell phone data from the young woman, herself, was never sought by Officer D during his investigation. Officer D submitted that he had no legal grounds to seek her text data, as the meeting with the young men had been coordinated using the phone belonging to the young woman’s friend. However, Officer D could have sought the young woman’s consent to the release of her text data, and did not do so.

Critically, Officer D failed to appreciate that one particular aspect of the account given by the young woman, alleging criminal behaviour by one of the young men, was supported by the accounts given by three witnesses, two of whom were members of the ‘Roastbusters’ group. In this instance, the young man continued his behaviour despite being told by the young woman to stop. When he failed to cease what he was doing after again being told to stop, this time by one of the other young men, the two other young men physically intervened to stop the behaviour. The failure of Police to properly consider the evidence with prosecution in mind is discussed at paragraph 83.

**scumdog** · 20th March 2015, 16:54

Originally Posted by Big Dog

At its simplest: If they were unable to give informed consent at the time of the act it is rape.

From there it gets much muddier.
Who is responsible for burden of proof?
At what point can you no longer decide that was a bad decision?
No means no! But, what's about when your chosen participants body language says otherwise? Who here has never had a woman whisper "no, stop" in their ear? Did you? What was the reaction?
How accurate I don't know but in sex ed at high school educators came around and advised the statutory age does not apply to boys specifically and only applied to boys where they were not the initiator and even then that was a precedence rather than a law.
Essentially telling us to go forth and sow our wild oats but to always sleep with women above the age of consent.

Back to what does constitute consent.
If the boy is himself under age as well can he be held accountable for not gaining hers?
Is it still rape if you never got consent but then you never asked either? Assuming they are conscious and not under the influence.
Does that change where there was a clear agreement of an exchange of bodily fluids prior to intoxication if they were intoxicated at the time?
If you can be to intoxicated to give consent, can you be too intoxicated to retract consent?

Drunken sex can be fun. At what point are you too drunk to continue? Does this change because your relationship has?
I suspect the answer to that is going to be different for every person.

For me inhibitions gone is good. Slurring and star fishing is bad.
What Is your guide?

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Good comments, very sensible and thought provoking!

(Are you sure you belong on KB???)

**98tls** · 20th March 2015, 17:03

Originally Posted by scumdog

And yeah, it's YOU people getting tickets that take cops away from 'real' police work, shame on you....

With the thousands of domestic violence related 111 calls from Thursday to Sunday weekly not to mention the spikes any time theres a public hloiday its a wonder theres any coppers doing road time let alone rape cases or anything else for that matter.The old lady can provide some staggering facts documented over many years re what takes up coppers time.

**mada** · 20th March 2015, 17:16

The report clearly states that GDB (frontline) staff all did their jobs and reporting properly. There was no issues with them.

The cock up and extremely poor performance was by a specialist unit and group of detectives who only focus on Child Abuse/ Child Sex Abuse - the Child Protection Team who should have known and done better.

**mashman** · 20th March 2015, 17:21

So, underage sex isn't against the law.

**98tls** · 20th March 2015, 17:25

Needs to be said so...lets face facts good police work or bad the result will 9 times outta 10 be a fail as some geriatric with a robe surrounded by an army of otherwise unemployable do -gooders will see fit to impose a sentence which nullifies anything done or not by the coppers.