Former blazer sentenced to prison

[dd10snoop28]

https://apnews.com/article/ben-mclemore ... eb2df6e06d


Sheesh. Basically a he-said, she-said situation which makes the 8-yr conviction + sentencing seem nuts.

[pezsez1]

It's not exactly as simple as he said/she said. Others who were at the party testified the woman was incredibly drunk to the point she could was struggling to walk, that she threw up around midnight, and then had passed out around 2 a.m. Covington said he left the room when "action" started around 4 to 5 a.m. I'm not an alcoholic by any means, but I've drank myself to the point of blacking out at least a handful of times over the years and I couldn't imagine making any real decisions (or even being fully awake) so quickly after passing out.

Covington testified that the woman was trying to arouse McLemore when he left the room... he basically implied she was giving him a handjob. But she & McLemore were underneath a blanket and there's no way he could have really known. McLemore could have been prepping himself. Covington also testified he'd been drinking and said everyone there had been drinking pretty heavily.

Common sense tells me this woman got blackout drunk and passed out & that McLemore decided to have his way with her... a.k.a. he raped her. Maybe the biggest tell is that she never sought money from him, only justice.

I want to believe that McLemore only raped her because he was drunk, not because he's a predatory piece of s***. That's what his statements & upstanding actions throughout the trial would lead me to believe. Not once has he attacked the victim through the media or attempted to defame or discredit her. Maybe that's just his PR machine at work, playing the long game for his eventual release and his life afterward. Who knows.

Definitely a sad story. The woman was permanently traumatized, and McLemore's life is basically over.

[dd10snoop28]

Ya, i don't know many of the details of the case but if what you are saying is true, then i think this was even more of a perversion of justice than i initially thoughts.

"Common sense tells me this woman got blackout drunk and passed out & that McLemore decided to have his way with her... a.k.a. he raped her. Maybe the biggest tell is that she never sought money from him, only justice."

You don't put someone in prison for 8 years because of your perceived idea of what "common sense" is.

Weren't they both drunk? How can you convict without any witnesses?

[pezsez1]

You don't put someone in prison for 8 years because of your perceived idea of what "common sense" is.

He's not going to prison because of any of our personal opinions. He's going to prison because a jury weighed the evidence and unanimously agreed that he raped her. All I'm saying is the rape appears even more evident when viewed through the lens of common sense.

I agree a smoking gun would have been nice (wouldn't it always?) but that's why we have juries. If the defense had a stronger case, then certainly at least one juror would have refused to convict. But sounds like there were plenty of witnesses who saw this woman incapacitated and in no condition to give consent. Witnesses described her as struggling to walk or keep her head up. That's not just drunk, that is DRUNK.

Also, this is definitely not the first criminal conviction that's lacked a smoking gun. I remember the Lacey Peterson murder maybe 20 years ago. If I remember right, her husband was convicted even though there was never a single piece of evidence that directly tied him to the crime. But it was the overwhelming mosaic of evidence that did him in.

In this case... woman gets black-out drunk... everyone sees her pass out on the couch after being so wasted she can barely function... soon after, McLemore has sex with her (even admitting in court they didn't speak before, during or after the sex).

Maybe he was drunk, maybe in his impaired mind he thought it was all good, and maybe he really is sorry for what happened... but rape is rape. He's a big boy and I'm sure he knew better.

[dd10snoop28]

None of that makes sense. They were both drunk. There are no witnesses to the alleged crime. There is no physical evidence (that I'm aware of). His testimony is directly in contrast to hers (i.e. that she was the one that made advances on him). The only other "outside" testimony is Covington who supports Mclemore's side of the story.

If anything, she should be charged with sexual assault.

Never commit a crime a leftist jurisdiction is the moral of the story. They'll convict their peers based off social narratives (#metoo) rather than evidence.

[bellsduck]

I hope this thread gets shut down.

[pezsez1]

Never commit a crime a leftist jurisdiction is the moral of the story. They'll convict their peers based off social narratives (#metoo) rather than evidence.

Go to bed, dude. You're drunk.

Also if you came into this with a political narrative that you were just dying to share then why did you post in Other Guys? This should be in Out of Topic, or you should just add it to your Florida Guy thread, it would actually be quite on brand there.

[dd10snoop28]

Again, there is no eyewitness testimony or any other evidence that points to this being rape. None. Just because the alleged victim was witnessed being "blacked-out drunk" hours before the incident means nothing in regards to what actually happened.

Insanity.

[pezsez1]

She was passed out and he raped her. Moral of the story is don't have sex with women who are passed out.

[dd10snoop28]

Based off the testimony of Covington, she was awake and making sexual advances to Mclemore.... this was also confirmed by Mclemore. Where did it say she was passed out?

Ya, that's not how justice works. Burden of proof needs to be extensive to convict someone criminally for 8 years. You are proving my point about the jury.

Based off the evidence I've seen, she should've been charged w/ sexual assault and he should be free. But a jury would rightfully dismiss the sexual assault charges by the woman b/c they were both drunk....so you have two individuals that are not in proper state of mind.

[Duck07]

Again, there is no eyewitness testimony or any other evidence that points to this being rape. None. Just because the alleged victim was witnessed being "blacked-out drunk" hours before the incident means nothing in regards to what actually happened.

Insanity.

So a Witness testifying that the victim was black-out drunk means that the victim is unable to give consent - period. The defendant's attorney arguing it was consensual only means that they did engage in sex and apparently a jury felt that there was more than enough reasonable evidence to suggest that rape occurred.

Prosecutors submitted photos of the woman hovering over a toilet and then passed out on a couch...

McLemore testified he was also drinking but claimed the sex was consensual. He also said he and the woman did not have a conversation before, during or after the act, after which he immediately left the home.

[dd10snoop28]

Again, there is no eyewitness testimony or any other evidence that points to this being rape. None. Just because the alleged victim was witnessed being "blacked-out drunk" hours before the incident means nothing in regards to what actually happened.

Insanity.

So a Witness testifying that the victim was black-out drunk means that the victim is unable to give consent - period. The defendant's attorney arguing it was consensual only means that they did engage in sex and apparently a jury felt that there was more than enough reasonable evidence to suggest that rape occurred.

Prosecutors submitted photos of the woman hovering over a toilet and then passed out on a couch...

McLemore testified he was also drinking but claimed the sex was consensual. He also said he and the woman did not have a conversation before, during or after the act, after which he immediately left the home.

If she was blacked-out drunk, then how can a jury rely on her testimony? Same can be said of Mclemore since he was also impaired.

So the only reliable witness is Covington.

If your big piece of evidence was that she was blacked-out drunk, then that nullifies her testimony.

1 drunk male is saying she initiated sexual activity.

1 drunk female is saying she was raped.

that's the entirety of the case.

Where is the "reasonable evidence" to convict? And "reasonable evidence" is also different than evidence - in the totality - that demonstrates he committed the crime BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There's no way any jury member could conclude that based off the facts.

[dd10snoop28]

Also, on your (Duck07) standard, you have enabled a slippery slope where a woman can claim rape at certain alcohol-heavy parties where sexual activity takes place with a man.

All u need is a witness that the woman was really drunk (easy), and the man to admit they had sexual activity. That is the essence of this case.

Maybe this will prevent people from attending moral-less parties so I guess that's good...

[Duck07]

If she was blacked-out drunk, then how can a jury rely on her testimony? Same can be said of Mclemore since he was also impaired.

So the only reliable witness is Covington.

If your big piece of evidence was that she was blacked-out drunk, then that nullifies her testimony.

1 drunk male is saying she initiated sexual activity.

1 drunk female is saying she was raped.

that's the entirety of the case.

Where is the "reasonable evidence" to convict? And "reasonable evidence" is also different than evidence - in the totality - that demonstrates he committed the crime BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There's no way any jury member could conclude that based off the facts.

The reasonable evidence is that multiple people at this party have all testified the woman was not in a state of mind to be able to give consent for sex. He admitted he didn't speak to her prior to, during or after and then left.

That's rape.

[dd10snoop28]

Are you saying that because he didn't speak to her, that this is evidence that she did not consent?