Jerrard Tarrant charged with RAPE

beej67 said:
Anybody got a link to the 'sodomy' bit in the news? This begs for clarification. If he did her in the pooper and when she didn't want to be done in the pooper he might be in bigger trouble than if it was oral.
Click to expand...

It's a very shady law. By the wording, any and all oral sex in considered sodomy in Georgia, consentual or not. Here ya go:

(a) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will or the other person.

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/georgia/sodomy.html
 
A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will or the other person.
Click to expand...

Aha!

So where's the link to the AJC? Was it sodomy, or aggravated sodomy?
 
beej67 said:
Aha!

So where's the link to the AJC? Was it sodomy, or aggravated sodomy?
Click to expand...


AJC says it was "sodomy". I'm wondering why it wasn't aggravated too. My only guess as to how we get these charges is that he got a consensual BJ (that she told the cops about) and then he decided that he was entitled to the rest. If that was the case, then shouldn't she be charged with sodomy too?

As far as the Constitutional issues go, there isn't a "right" to sodomy. The right is to privacy, which means that the cops can't go around peering in bedrooms (or dorms) looking for sodomy. But if she told them about it, its a different matter and then they can charge for it. That's my understanding anyways.
 
savbandjacket said:
AJC says it was "sodomy". I'm wondering why it wasn't aggravated too. My only guess as to how we get these charges is that he got a consensual BJ (that she told the cops about) and then he decided that he was entitled to the rest. If that was the case, then shouldn't she be charged with sodomy too?

As far as the Constitutional issues go, there isn't a "right" to sodomy. The right is to privacy, which means that the cops can't go around peering in bedrooms (or dorms) looking for sodomy. But if she told them about it, its a different matter and then they can charge for it. That's my understanding anyways.
Click to expand...

I thought that law was changed a few years ago when the highly recruited HS kid went to jail for getting a bj? And there was a big mess about it not being retroactive? Anyone else remember that?
 
RamblinPeck said:
I thought that law was changed a few years ago when the highly recruited HS kid went to jail for getting a bj? And there was a big mess about it not being retroactive? Anyone else remember that?
Click to expand...

I remember this. There was this old law that put him in jail for getting a bj from a minor or something.

It was just something that slipped through the cracks for so long and they changed it but it doesn't help him get out. I think I saw it on the local news. His mom was holding protests and what not.
 
RamblinPeck said:
I thought that law was changed a few years ago when the highly recruited HS kid went to jail for getting a bj? And there was a big mess about it not being retroactive? Anyone else remember that?
Click to expand...
That law that was changed was affecting mainly minors and any sex as I remember -- and not sodomy in general. Sodomy in this state is still considered oral or anal sex. USSC upheld this in Bowers v Hardwick as it applied to homosexuals.

However, and we might need to get Lawbee back involved with this, but I thought heterosexual sodomy was deemed legal in Powell v St. of Georgia in 1998?

Ruling 6 to 1, the Court said, "We cannot think of any other activity that reasonable persons would rank as more private and more deserving of protection from governmental interference than consensual , private, adult sexual activity....We conclude that such activity is at the heart of the Georgia Constitution's protection of the right of privacy."
Click to expand...

Found some of this via wikipedia link of Bowers v. Hardwick.
 
So a little research came up with a couple of results. Aparently the Georgia supreme court turned down the sodomy laws in 1998. However I also find people saying that it is any sex involving the mouth and sex organ. Would someone that knows the law (law_bee?) please clarify this because there seems to be some misinformation out there on sodomy in GA. How is he still charged with sodomy if I am reading that we no longer have sodomy laws and that Lawrence v. Texas ruled it was unconstitional to have them?
 
Probably isn't charged, the AJC just stuck it in there for Handwaving Freakoutery purposes.
 
the deal w/ the high school kid was consensual oral sex where D and V are within 3 years of age and V is 14 or older. That use to be a felony for oral sex and misdemeanor for vaginal sex.

I am guessing the sodomy in this case is probably oral sex and then they later had vaginal sex.

Providing the alleged victim is 16 or older this case will come down to what evidence if any shows force. The amount of time that went by may mean there are issues.
 
law_bee said:
the deal w/ the high school kid was consensual oral sex where D and V are within 3 years of age and V is 14 or older. That use to be a felony for oral sex and misdemeanor for vaginal sex.

I am guessing the sodomy in this case is probably oral sex and then they later had vaginal sex.

Providing the alleged victim is 16 or older this case will come down to what evidence if any shows force. The amount of time that went by may mean there are issues.
Click to expand...

law_bee, check the UGA arrest thread. Can you explain the difference between battery/simple battery/etc there?
 
recent article.
no intercourse

only oral sex
he had started doing the oral sex THEN she told him to stop....after she had already conceded to get to that point.

JT said he stopped.

She claims he didn't.

How can you go to trial or convict on a he said she said? There was no semen no other evidence than "vaginal bruising" which could easily happen while using fingers....etc...

It says she was upset afterwards, but who knows...she had a BF and just cheated on him, was drinking...how do you know this wasn't her way out? It happened on the tech campus before...similar reason...claim rape to get out of a situation.
 
God DAMNIT I hate the AJC. You can tell me that it doesn't mean anything but I find this headline infuriatingly inaccurate:

Tech player charged with rape: sex was consensual

MAKE THE HEADLINE THE ACTUAL STORY YOU WORTHLESS PIECES OF ****

Jesus Christ I can't tell you how angry I am. They're already trying to frame it up as him claiming they had sex but that it was consensual.

Tell me I'm not the only one that's pissed off.
 
TechinItEasy said:
I have a REALLY hard time believing that he forced himself orally on her.
Click to expand...

me too. I don't even see how this could make it to trial. How do you even force onto someone in that position? Crap she could easily push his head away or knee him. I mean jeez...it doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I don't know all the details, but is the DA just trying to make a name for herself? I see no evidence to even warrant charges....
 
"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution does not identify victims of sexual assault."

I guarantee you that if this was a UGAg player, that would go as follows:

"The ALLEGED Journal and Constitution doesn't identify LIARS that LIE about ALLEGED sexual assault. ALLEGEDLY.

GODDAMN LIARS."
 
The Jacket said:
"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution does not identify victims of sexual assault."

I guarantee you that if this was a UGAg player, that would go as follows:

"The ALLEGED Journal and Constitution doesn't identify LIARS that LIE about ALLEGED sexual assault. ALLEGEDLY.

GODDAMN LIARS."
Click to expand...

That's really not true. The AJC has not shied away from reporting the numerous U[sic]GA arrests. In fact, they even had that great line about some guy's arrest being the first sure sign of the U[sic]GA offseason. And I'm not sure how that headline was inaccurate...he WAS charged with rape, wasn't he? And he DID say the sex was consensual? Unless I'm missing something. In fact, the AJC headline was less incriminating than the title of this thread, which is on a GT message board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top