rape
Norfolk, VA — (RT) A student at Old Dominion University in Virginia filed a complaint to federal education officials, claiming campus police didn’t let her take a forensic medical exam after reporting she had been raped until after they interrogated her for almost eight hours.

In a personal statement included with the complaint, obtained by AP, the woman said the detectives’ comments and questions made her feel like she was “being violated again,” including: “Do you like rough sex?” and “I’m just trying to find the crime here.

The eight-hour experience has left her with post-traumatic stress and anxiety disorder, the woman, whose identity has not been revealed, said.

“After the entire day of being victimized by your police department, I was left feeling paranoid and scared as if I was the criminal,” she wrote, according to AP.

Advertisment

According to the complaint, the woman told campus police she was raped in her dorm room and had an appointment at a local medical center for a forensic exam the same day. However, instead of taking the woman to the appointment, the campus police brought her to their department. She was held there for nearly eight hours and denied food, water, and access to the bathroom between interrogations, her complaint to federal education officials about the October 2014 incident says.

The woman accused school officials of mishandling the case, noting that she was not informed about her right to seek a protective order against her alleged attacker (who was not an Old Dominion University student) after ODU Police declined to seek one on her behalf. This turned the woman’s life into a constant nightmare, forcing her to “live on campus for months in fear that her attacker could return and harm her at any moment,” the complaint said.

READ MORE:  5 Major Stories Americans Missed While Consumed by the Super Bowl

The woman says she was not allowed to move out of the dorm room, where she was attacked, until after she received a diagnosis for a psychological condition. Her assault was not even added to the school’s daily crime log until after a reporter found out about it.

“This validated to me that Old Dominion University never took my sexual assault seriously and does not care for me as one of their students,” the woman complained.

 The complaint says the university violated federal law by failing to give the woman written information about the importance of preserving evidence of her rape for a forensic exam. On top of it, it says, the university failed to inform the woman that she actually had the legal right to decline to report the crime to police before getting an exam.

“Had Ms. Doe known about her right to decline to report to law enforcement prior to receiving a forensic examination and medical care, she would have been able to attend her appointment at a local medical center to receive care for her injuries and bleeding after her rape on campus,” the complaint said, AP reported.

The woman’s attorney, Laura Dunn, said the complaint was filed earlier this week with the US Department of Education, which could fine the school up to $35,000 per violation.

She said that although a criminal investigation was launched after the assault, the alleged attacker was never charged.

Giovanna Genard, a spokeswoman for Old Dominion, a public university in Norfolk, Virginia with around 25,000 students, said the school has “zero tolerance” for sexual assault.

READ MORE:  Cops Who Were Caught on Video Robbing and Terrorizing Store Owners Will Not Face Charges

“The University is committed to following all legal requirements for investigating complaints of sexual assault and to treating victims with care, professionalism and respect,” Genard said on Thursday.

SHARE
  • Brother Mark:)

    Like others you seem to have a problem with “affirmative consent”.
    You’re the type of man who one day might be taken out by his buddies for a drinking party and gets so drunk the next thing he knows….he’s getting screwed in his ass!
    Afterwards they tell you what a drunk “whore” you were when you file a complaint with the police.
    As well, whether you consider someone a “drunk whore” or not, according to the definition of affirmative consent, if consent is not being given her being a “drunk whore” as you say would not change the matter.
    It looks as if someone like yourself would like to think otherwise.
    RAPISTS don’t like affirmative consent.

    • Razedbywolvs

      Thats why i don’t drink with fags.
      You should try it being sober because “if consent is not being given her” is a really interesting concept, especially since it completely negates male homosexual rape.
      A women is given consent by whom? Why do you think fags can’t be raped?
      Never mind, lets go back to affirmative consent instead of what ever weird thing is going on in your head. Say a marred women into BDSM asked her husband to choke her out and perform sex.
      If she can’t consent while unconscious, is her husband a rapist?

      • Brother Mark:)

        Nothing I said negates homosexual rape, or that homosexuals can’t be raped. The word “her” was I would think rather clearly not be used unilaterally towards how the concept of affirmative consent can be applied. I was only giving a theoretical example of how your denial of the validity of affirmative consent can work against you should anyone think that you can’t have been raped should it happen, because someone thought you were behaving like a drunk whore whether you are homosexual or not.
        Concerning your own theoretical question, the answer would clearly be no. Why? Because she asked her husband to choke her out and have sex with her afterwards, knowing beforehand that she would be unconscious for it. None of this of course was what happened to the young woman that the story was about.
        Let me ask you serious question now. Do you even acknowledge that an individual can be raped, and if so what do you think that the criteria should be to determine if a person has indeed been raped?

        • Razedbywolvs

          Well you failed on your validity of affirmative consent on both accounts. My own theoretical question is pretty much a shortened version of case that
          made the Scotus change the definition of rape to the affirmative consent standers.
          You cant get ongoing affirmative consent from a unconscious person says the law. You would be doing 15 years you rapist!
          Yes I acknowledge a person can be raped. I think the criteria should be evidence.

          • Brother Mark:)

            Really!
            “My own theoretical question is pretty much a shortened version of case that made the Scotus change the definition of rape to the affirmative consent standers”.

            And just what SCOTUS case would you be referring to?

            “I think the criteria should be evidence”.
            Of course. But what type of evidence of a lack of consent do you think as reasonable?

          • Razedbywolvs

            SCOTUS” Supreme Court Of the United States, but i was partly wrong because it was a Canadian case. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/11/07/can_an_unconscious_person_consent_to_sex.html
            Hard evidence, preferably but i wouldn’t completely exclude soft evidence assuming nothing has been omitted.

          • Brother Mark:)

            Partly wrong? No, unless Canada is the U.S. you were simply wrong. I apologise in advance if my bluntness offends you.
            Let me put it another way for you here instead of putting this in the comment above. If a woman were to tell her husband “sweetie after I go to sleep tonight please sex me real good in my fanny while I’m sleeping”, then this would satisfy the requirement of affirmative consent.

            Your theoretical question was another version of this.
            Nowhere does anyone’s definition of affirmative consent consider explicit and pre-planned conscent before the inability to do so, with the knowledge that this state will soon occur and even participating in bring about that incapacitated state the same as sexing some woman right after she passed out from being too drunk or otherwise intoxicated or incapacitated.

            Definition of affirmative consent:

            system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/policies/affirmative-consent/

            In the case considered with the Supreme Court of Canada:

            “The complainant in the case is an Ottawa woman who was strangled into unconsciousness by her common-law partner on May 22, 2007 and awoke to find herself being sodomized, with her hands tied behind her back”.

            “She testified that she and her partner, known as J.A., had experimented with ‘erotic asphyxiation’ in the past and had discussed the possibility of anal intercourse as a way of “spicing up” their relationship, but what happened that night was quite SPONTANEOUS”.

            As well, nowhere in this article do you see “affirmative consent” mentioned as well, because advance consent as being argued here is not necessarily something that fits with the concept of affirmative consent as explained.

            Concerning an individuals lack of consent, what would you consider hard or soft evidence?

          • Razedbywolvs

            “The proposed legislation, known as Bill C-51, would update the Criminal
            Code to reflect a 2011 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which
            involved the case of a couple that engaged in erotic asphyxiation.” “http://www.citynews.ca/2017/06/06/unconscious-person-cannot-consent-federal-government-updates-sexual-assault-laws/

            https://www.reference.com/world-view/difference-between-hard-evidence-soft-evidence-e56c8e2e5f14efdf

          • Brother Mark:)

            “She testified that she and her partner, known as J.A., had experimented with ‘erotic asphyxiation’ in the past and had discussed the possibility of anal intercourse as a way of “spicing up” their relationship, but what happened that night was quite SPONTANEOUS”.

            “The complainant in the case is an Ottawa woman who was strangled into unconsciousness by her common-law partner on May 22, 2007 and awoke to find herself being sodomized, with her hands tied behind her back”.

            Of course “erotic asphyxiation” it self wasn’t the issue, the issue was whether or not the predicament she awoke to was pre-planned and therefore to be expected.
            You’re quoting the introduction that makes a reference to the case, NOT what the issue here actually was, and therefore why the woman was the complainant in this case. Engaging in erotic asphyxiation doesn’t mean that you plan on awaking to being sodomized.

            Oh yes!
            This all sounds VERY pre-planned…… doesn’t it?
            Please don’t mind my sarcasm.

            justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c51.html

            Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act:

            “Amend section 273.1 to clarify that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting, which reflects the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v J.A (2011)”.

            Absolutely nothing here speaks of an individual giving prior consent or of actually asking someone to perform a sexual act knowing the incapacitated state will soon occur and even participating in bringing about that incapacitated state.

          • Razedbywolvs

            “erotic asphyxiation” wasn’t the issue but the court ruled on that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting.
            Why didn’t they make a ruling on being sodomized if that was the issue?

          • Brother Mark:)

            The issue of sodomy has already been legally addressed in Canada, and may well be continued to be adjudicated.

            sources.com/SSR/Docs/SSRW-Sodomy_Law.htm

            The issue was not sodomy.

            The issue here was the fact that she didn’t consent to having sex and couldn’t while unconscious.

            Your theoretical question had a far different proposition, in that a woman conscents and even asks for the sexual activity prior to the incapacitated state knowing beforehand that such a state will occur, and even participating in bringing about that incapacitated state.

          • Brother Mark:)

            Partly wrong? No, unless Canada is the U.S. you were simply wrong. I apologise in advance if my bluntness offends you.
            Let me put it another way for you here instead of putting this in the comment above. If a woman were to tell her husband “sweetie after I go to sleep tonight please sex me real good in my fanny while I’m sleeping”, then this would satisfy the requirement of affirmative consent.

            Your theoretical question was another version of this.
            Nowhere does anyone’s definition of affirmative consent consider explicit and pre-planned conscent before the inability to do so, with the knowledge that this state will soon occur and even participating in bringing about that incapacitated state the same as sexing some woman right after she passed out from being too drunk or otherwise intoxicated or incapacitated.

            Definition of affirmative consent:

            system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/policies/affirmative-consent/

            In the case considered with the Supreme Court of Canada:

            “The complainant in the case is an Ottawa woman who was strangled into unconsciousness by her common-law partner on May 22, 2007 and awoke to find herself being sodomized, with her hands tied behind her back”.

            “She testified that she and her partner, known as J.A., had experimented with ‘erotic asphyxiation’ in the past and had discussed the possibility of anal intercourse as a way of “spicing up” their relationship, but what happened that night was quite SPONTANEOUS”.

            As well, nowhere in this article do you see “affirmative consent” mentioned as well, because advance consent as being argued here is not necessarily something that fits with the concept of affirmative consent as explained.

            Concerning an individuals lack of consent, what would you consider hard or soft evidence?

          • Brother Mark:)

            There is a difference between giving on going consent if your unconscious and knowing beforehand that you were going to be unconscious and preparing for it by not only giving prior consent but telling you that this is what you wanted beforehand.

            As an example, because someone gave consent and then passed out drunk, this would certainly not be anything close to what your theoretical question’s presupposition was asking.

          • Razedbywolvs

            How, what would be the difference between unconches and passed out drunk?

          • Brother Mark:)

            I really believe that I have made that as simple as anyone can, if you need to, please read again what was written, in particular the first paragraph.