The latter is the argument of the prosecution. There is no physical and/or testimonial evidence to support this.***
The physical evidence is she was black-out drunk and had passed out on a couch. Nobody believes she was able to snap back to form within 2 hours and non-verbally consent to having sex.
I'd also like to add that we're probably not privy to all the evidence. The media coverage on this was exceptionally thin, and most of the coverage looks like rehashes of a few original reports that didn't appear to have any real digging through court docs. I'm guessing this is the result of the continued downsizing of local journalism.
Bottom line is a jury heard all the available evidence and was unanimous in its verdict. Jury selection is handled by both sides. A grand jury also heard the evidence prior to this trial and opted to file charges.
Get over it and move on. Be happy that a rapist will get what he deserves for a change.
You and the jury are convinced that if a person is drunk and has sexual intercourse then that automatically means that they were raped.
That's clearly wrong. Additionally, the fact that the witness testified that she was "arousing" McLemore supports the fact that he (1) did no force himself on her and (2) that she was conscious during the activity. End of story.
Is it possible that he r*aped her? Yes. Is it possible that she willingly participated in sexual activity between 2 drunk people? Yes.
There is a ton of "reasonable doubt" in this case to acquit him of the charges. Unfortunate miscarriage of justice.
dd10snoop28 wrote: Sat Jul 12, 2025 1:39 pm
You and the jury are convinced that if a person is drunk and has sexual intercourse then that automatically means that they were raped.
That's clearly wrong. Additionally, the fact that the witness testified that she was "arousing" McLemore supports the fact that he (1) did no force himself on her and (2) that she was conscious during the activity. End of story.
Is it possible that he r*aped her? Yes. Is it possible that she willingly participated in sexual activity between 2 drunk people? Yes.
There is a ton of "reasonable doubt" in this case to acquit him of the charges. Unfortunate miscarriage of justice.
Is there some public controversy over this jury decision other than your own? I couldn't find any from a quick google search. It seems significant to me that the woman is not seeking a civil suit (although that could always be done later). Do you think she is lying about being raped? I know there are varying degrees of morality in the world - I would fall on the very conservative end of the spectrum, but I would think anyone would want to avoid drunk people to engage in sexual activity. Aside from how low class it has always been considered to take advantage of a drunk person, there is always the risk of the woman waking up the next day and accusing the man of rape, whether it happened that way or she just realized her regret and legal advantage. Men need to have more sense than this.
dd10snoop28 wrote: Sat Jul 12, 2025 1:39 pm
You and the jury are convinced that if a person is drunk and has sexual intercourse then that automatically means that they were raped.
That's clearly wrong. Additionally, the fact that the witness testified that she was "arousing" McLemore supports the fact that he (1) did no force himself on her and (2) that she was conscious during the activity. End of story.
Is it possible that he r*aped her? Yes. Is it possible that she willingly participated in sexual activity between 2 drunk people? Yes.
There is a ton of "reasonable doubt" in this case to acquit him of the charges. Unfortunate miscarriage of justice.
Is there some public controversy over this jury decision other than your own? I couldn't find any from a quick google search. It seems significant to me that the woman is not seeking a civil suit (although that could always be done later). Do you think she is lying about being raped? I know there are varying degrees of morality in the world - I would fall on the very conservative end of the spectrum, but I would think anyone would want to avoid drunk people to engage in sexual activity. Aside from how low class it has always been considered to take advantage of a drunk person, there is always the risk of the woman waking up the next day and accusing the man of rape, whether it happened that way or she just realized her regret and legal advantage. Men need to have more sense than this.
Right. She could be lying. He could be lying. There's no way to know. You can't convict based solely off the testimony of the plaintiff. I think people don't understand the ramifications of a conviction like this. Using the same rationale, every single person at a party who gets drunk and engages in sexual activity could be convicted of "rape" because being drunk = unable to give consent, and being "unable to give consent" = rape.
I'm quite surprised by the short-sighted and dismissive responses in this thread.
dd10snoop28 wrote: Sat Jul 12, 2025 1:39 pm
You and the jury are convinced that if a person is drunk and has sexual intercourse then that automatically means that they were raped.
That's clearly wrong. Additionally, the fact that the witness testified that she was "arousing" McLemore supports the fact that he (1) did no force himself on her and (2) that she was conscious during the activity. End of story.
Is it possible that he r*aped her? Yes. Is it possible that she willingly participated in sexual activity between 2 drunk people? Yes.
There is a ton of "reasonable doubt" in this case to acquit him of the charges. Unfortunate miscarriage of justice.
Is there some public controversy over this jury decision other than your own? I couldn't find any from a quick google search. It seems significant to me that the woman is not seeking a civil suit (although that could always be done later).
No, I just saw an article on it and saw the basis for the conviction and thought I must be missing something. I don't see any public controversy either.
Yes, civil suits seem to happen after criminal conviction from my limited knowledge.
You and the jury are convinced that if a person is drunk and has sexual intercourse then that automatically means that they were raped.
Do you not know the differences between being tipsy/drunk vs. being either passed out or blacked out on your feet? Good lord, you are one dense mofo. You can't even argue a shitty position without making things up.
