Hotel Blames Victim For Rape

[guywithashovel]

http://www.wfsb.com/news/20386348/detail.html
http://lawitchesbrew.blogspot.com/20...-for-rape.html

She got raped in the hotel's parking garage, and then sued the hotel for having negligent security. Now the hotel's saying she acted irresponsibly.

(Sorry if this has already been posted. I did a couple searches and nothing came up.)

[violetyoshi]

Absolutely disgusting! In front of her children too, the hotel should pay for their therapy!

[Lace Neil Singer]

Why is she suing the hotel? Surely the rapist is more to blame? Rapists don't wear signs that state that they're sickos, so even if there was a security guard there, it's not as tho they'd stop them. I know the article says that she says the guy was "acting suspiciously" but doesn't give details. If he was just hanging around the lobby, well, I've been in hotels and often there's people hanging around in the lobby. It certainly doesn't mean they're all up to no good.

While the victim is in no way to blame for what happened to her, I don't really see how the hotel could have prevented the actions of a determined rapist. Even if they had an entire team of security guards patrolling the area, they can't all stay glued to the spot where this woman happened to be for the entire time; there'd be a time where they'd be elsewhere. In any case, sad but true, this defence is often thrown up by people; it's just easier to blame the victim in cases like this. Fact is, there's only one person to blame; and he's inside doing twenty years.

[Slytovhand]

There's at least 2 sides to a story... the articles barely even gives half a side...

All it really says is one person is suing a hotel, and the hotel is countering it... not a lot of facts being mentioned to support either.

[Ghel]

I want to know what the woman could have done to get the hotel to claim that she "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities." Certainly she couldn't be expected to think she'd be assaulted in the hotel's parking garage?

[kibbles]

I don't take it as the hotel is blaming her for getting raped; but, she also has no right to blame the hotel. The only one that can be blamed is the man that is in prison. She is just looking for a quick buck in my opinion.

[BlaqueKatt]

I want to know what the woman could have done to get the hotel to claim that she "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."

FTA-"The woman claims the man was in the hotel and the garage acting suspicious for days before the attack, but the hotel did not notice him or make him leave."

and obviously she noticed him and didn't say anything to anyone.

Also what are people told to do when walking to their car?
Have your keys in hand so you're not distracted looking for them.

Doesn't say she didn't do that-however with her children being 3 and 5 I'm betting she had her back to her assailant while distracted adjusting her children's seatbelts/carseats. I always climbed into the car and shut the door behind me before adjusting my son's carseat as I knew otherwise I was EXTREMLY vulnerable(women's self defense course taught me that)

Certainly she couldn't be expected to think she'd be assaulted in the hotel's parking garage?

not to be snarky-but where should she expect to be assaulted?

Her own home, a bar, jogging in the park?

what if it happened in a city parking garage or a park that has no security-who would she blame then?

Assaults happen everywhere-trusting your gut instincts, and being aware of your surroundings are the keys to personal safety.

I don't "expect" anything to happen to me, but I am aware it can and may-and I take steps to lessen the chance it will.

I don't go out alone if I can avoid it. however if I do, I am aware of my surroundings(no headphones in, no cell phone conversation going on), and I always have some form of defensive weapon at the ready, be it my keys or a lit cigarette. I don't look like an "easy victim" for anyone.

[crazylegs]

There are a huge amount of factors that need to be taken into account when dealing with this.

Firstly.

Stranger rape is exceptionally rare, it's statistically more likely that a woman will be raped by a man that she knows.

Secondly

For an offence to take place all three of the following need to be present

• A Suitable Victim
• A Suitable Location
• A Lack of a Capable Guardian

If any of those three criteria are not met crime does not occur, so it could be argued that the presence of a guard would have prevented the offence from occuring, however with the risk being so small (generally speaking) is it worth the company providing a guard for an event that is so statistically rare? But where does it stop, does she then sue the city because the police were not present? Does she sue the architect for designing an area where the offence can be commited?

Ultimately the rapist is responsible though and her efforts (IMO) should go towards suing him.

[BlaqueKatt]

But where does it stop, does she then sue the city because the police were not present?

been done already and the victims lost-SCOTUS ruled and upheld in numerous other cases that "the police have no duty to protect an individual citizen"

Posted in the "drug testing thread"

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Also this case

says pretty much the same thing

While the U.S. Supreme Court has held the Fifth Amendment forbids the state from depriving an individual of life, liberty or property without due process, Cox said the high court didn’t impose an obligation that the state ensure those interests “do not come to harm by other means.”

Cox wrote that the right denied under the Ninth Amendment was clearly enumerated by the plaintiff, but the amendment has never been held by the court to grant a right to “adequate police protection.”

[DesignFox]

Well, in the above case, if it were me, and THANK GOD it's not, I'd sue the police for not responding to a call.

If you call, they have to respond. Fourteen hours after you reported hearing distressed screaming is absolutely inexcusable.

Not being responsible for protecting every single solitary person? Understandable. It's just impossible. If they showed up and got incapacitated themselves...well there's a hundred reasons why that particular event may not have been 100% preventable...but anyway...

As for the story in the OP, I feel really sorry for the victim and her children. I really do.

I reserve special feelings of hatred for rapists- especially violent ones.

But the hotel can in no way be held responsible for this. It isn't humanly possible to be 100% safe in all locations all the time. No one can ensure that. We don't have the money or man power to have armed guards escorting people everywhere...and even that isn't possibly 100% safe...people being what they are.

In my wonderful state, which I think I should abandon at some point, you can't even legally defend yourself in your own home. If you rob my house while I'm here, and I shoot you, stab you, bash your head in with my 6 foot whomping stick... I go to jail. Hip-hip Hooray for the law! (by the way, I'll gladly go to jail whomping a rapist, murderer or robber, just for the record).

Anyhow. I'm so fucking tired of people blaming everyone for everything! It SUCKS, but the fact is, the only person responsible for this is the rapist. So, stop whining about money and trying to grub it from whoever you think you can sue it out of! The lawyer who even took that case should be bludgeoned with a salmon.

[BlaqueKatt]

Well, in the above case, if it were me, and THANK GOD it's not, I'd sue the police for not responding to a call.

that is what happened-it was appealed all the way to the supreme court of the United States-and the women lost

If you call, they have to respond.

No they do not that is what the decision means.

is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

the high court didn’t impose an obligation that the state ensure those interests “do not come to harm by other means.”

the 9th amendment has never been held by the court to grant a right to “adequate police protection.”

in layman's terms:

Police protection is NOT a right, and they are under no obligation to protect you or respond in a timely manner-we've had several such cases in my lovely city where police did not respond to 911 calls that ultimately resulted in the caller's death at the hands of their assailant. The surviving family members have had the cases dismissed due to the above SCOTUS decision.

[DesignFox]

<snip>
Police protection is NOT a right, and they are under no obligation to protect you or respond in a timely manner-we've had several such cases in my lovely city where police did not respond to 911 calls that ultimately resulted in the caller's death at the hands of their assailant. The surviving family members have had the cases dismissed due to the above SCOTUS decision.

Well, I get it. But it doesn't mean I can't be angry about it.

Maybe I should go get some firearms and self defense training...oh right. I go to jail for protecting myself in my state. AND the police don't have to come. That's awesome.

Something isn't right about the whole thing. But my brain hurts enough already.

[Nyoibo]

To an extent it would be the hotels fault if it happened on their property, they have a duty of care, if they didn't take all reasonable precuations then they failed in their duty of care, not having all the details it's hard to make that call.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Ultimately the rapist is responsible though and her efforts (IMO) should go towards suing him.

I'll assume that it crossed her mind, but cuz he hasn't got a bean she's decided to sue the hotel instead. -.- Meaning that a big, juicy payout is all she's interested in.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'll assume that it crossed her mind, but cuz he hasn't got a bean she's decided to sue the hotel instead. -.- Meaning that a big, juicy payout is all she's interested in.

which if she did get it I'd hope there would be a stipulation that it stays in a trust to only pay for the therapy herself and her children will need.

Maybe I should go get some firearms and self defense training...oh right. I go to jail for protecting myself in my state.

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.