8current, former service members to sue military, alleging rape, sexual assault and h

I have no need to bring up newer figures. You are supposed to use the most up to date figures to present an argument. i have used all the latest figures,you have used figures from 1997 because you failed to research. Your problem not mind,your figures are out of date. Find some more or simply stop posting out of date stuff.

 

See, this again...

Initially it was that rape in the military was rampant and higher than civilian society...

Once that was disproven, Third Man just went on to compare it to the British military, which is like 10-15% of the size of the US military...

Beyond dishonest...

 

Wow, that's very interesting. So a female soldier that gets raped in town or is sexually assault by her civilian husband/boyfriend goes into the system as a statistic for military "rape/sexual assault?" The media then cites this statistic implying that it was rape committed by another military member.

 

I already posted his reference from his link.It is from 1997.

 

Thank you, now how about apples and oranges.

Your article talkes about the number of rapes. Not Sexual assaults.

And it talks about a military service 1/10 the size of the US military.

So kindly, let's make a full and complete comparison.

Give us the UK statistic of sexual assaults (including rape). And it should be at least close to the definition that the US military uses.

Then multiply the numbers by 10.

Then we can see how the 2 really compare.

Noticve, the

 

No, they are not even close.

The UK figure is rapes only. The US figure is rapes and sexual assault.

Please give us a number of UK rapes and assaults, then we can do a fair and equal comparison.

 

I have covered the size of the US and British military,you have ignored that. It is very clear from the stats that the British military has about 25 rapes per year recorded between 2007-2009 and the US military has at the very very lowest number,(it is much more),they have over 3100 per year. You cannot really dig your way out for this one mushroom.

 

Sure, i put them in my original posts, but here they are again.

The one from 1997 that gave TTM a fit, 1.7-3%:

http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Rape statistics.htm

The newer one, from 2010, with the 25% figure:

http://www.examiner.com/depression-...lege-students-will-be-raped-before-graduation

 

Yes I know they are not even close.The US military is way way ahead in a comparison with the British military and nothing you spout is going to change that fact.

 

So like 90% unreported, you could bump the estimate up to around 250/yr...

Which is about 1% of the 250,000-ish in the British military...

Just about the same percentage, no?

 

No you never put them in your original post.You are now lying. You put figures from 1997 with a link. and here you are doing it.You are dishonest.

http://www.politicalforum.com/warfa...-rape-sexual-assault-h-44.html#post1061037362

 

That is not from 2010,that is just a 2010 article quoting your report from 1997.More dishonesty. Also that is a commentary piece without a source,the same thing you were complaining about in Gwens post. Very funny.

 

The U.S. doesn't have 3191 rapes per year. It has 3191 rapes AND sexual assaults per year. Do you not understand the difference?

http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/content/faqs.cfm

 

Amazing that this poster would talk about someone being dishonest...

 

You have had your time and failed miserably in your roll as US military apologist. Any excuse under the sun. Shame on you.

 

See how you're being ignored, Ignorance, by the guy who has presented dishonest throughout this thread, and also, doesn't know the difference between "roll" and "role"?

LMAO

 

Address the facts. Calling me a military apologist without any semblance of a counter-point doesn't help your cause.

 

This thread is getting a bit ridiculous. I would prefer a "wrong" response to the 19000 extrapolation situation than no response at all. I've asked him more than 7 times now and he has yet to answer....unless you count him declaring me an "apologist" without addressing the issue at all. Gwen unfortunately has begun to do the same thing.

 

I am the one dealing in the facts here. Herk was using 20 year old data,mushroom has been caught using 15 year old data. I am the one using the most up to date data there is so please save the address the facts BS line. You are running around like a lapdog to mushroom and he has been proven to be very dishonest.

 

I have worked closely with my unit's SARC/SHARP representative.

There are 2 ways they can report such an incident. One is Unrestricted, where everything is doen with the assistance of law enforcement. The other is Restricted, where everything is 100% confidential (not even the command is notified who the soldier is, simply that one of their soldiers was assaulted).

And this report is where all statistics come from. It does not matter who the attacker is, the reports and statistic is made up of the person who was attacked (the military member). And yes, date-rape by a civilian, spousal rape, this all is included. We are not compiling figures of the number of soldiers raped or assaulted by other soldiers, simply statistics of soldiers raped or assaulted. No matter who it is that does the assault.

In my experience, only about 1 in 10 or so is an actual rape or attempted rape. Most of these statistics are more along the line of "inappropriate contact". And of the actual rapes, it is about half and half civilian/military perp. And in the vast majority of cases, drugs and/or alcohol had a lot to do with it (just like in most civilian sexual assaults).

And yes, I keep making one reference repeatedly because of a case we had about 2 years ago. We had one soldier who was rather... flamboyant. And he would constantly go around patting the other guys on the butt and saying "good game". One of them got tired of it, and filed a complaint for sexual assault. I was involved in the investigation, because he had done it to me in the past as well.

Since a complaint was filed, and investigated, I am actually one of those statistics from the year 2010. One male "touched inappropriately" on the posterior I think it was determined to be 10-12 other males, possibly in a sexual manner.

Yea, the entire thing was thrown out, no charges were ever filed. In the investigation he said it was simply a showing of male bonding, and nothing sexual was intended.

Yea, I know how little can go into these statistics. Basically people are looking at the raw data, compiled simply from the number of complaints recieved. And in most cases, like mine, nothing was done and nothing expected to ever be done. I certainly would never have made such a report myself, it was a giant waste of time. And of the Captain and Sergeant First Class who had to investigate it, and for the Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, and General who had to read off on and approve the results of the investigation.

I can only talk about a few instances, because these were openly disclosed and even reported in base newspapers. But in my experience, about 1/4 of the cases were known to be complete BS from the very beginning. One involved a former couple (both military), and the gal got upset because he told her after they had sex he was breaking up with her because his wife was about to move to the area. It was even rather sad, because during the court martial for rape, the victim actually admitted she was not raped, but was upset at him for tell her that after having sex (the rape charge was thrown out). He was still convicted of making a false statement (in the initial investigation he said they had not had sex). She was then charged and convicted of filing a false report. Both were then thrown out of the Army.

This is an example of an unrestricted report. The gal was mad, and wanted to get even. However, this was done as a full legal investigation, including a rape kit at the hospital. And when she asked that charges not be filed, the command of course ignored her. Especially once they had the results of the rape kit which showed she had indeed had sex with him.

Then in the trial, the actual truth came out. There had been sex, but consensual. Just like in civilian law, if a spouse assaults their partner, the DA can continue with charges, no matter what they themselves want. In military law it is no different. If the command or JAG thinks they have evidence to show a crime, they are going after it no matter what.

But the court martial was a year after the incident, so it was filed in the 2011 statistics as a rape/sexual assault.

We are doing an investigation right now over something that happened about 2 months ago in the barracks. The barracks have a cerfew of 2am on weekends for all visitors and guests to be out of the barracks. One of the females was found to have her boyfriend in the room after 3am, with an amount of alcohol in excess of that allowed in barracks regulations. She also showed positive in a drug test for illegal substances (Spice). She claimed that she was raped, and that the alcohol and drugs were used to do this, also making her unconscious so that she missed the cerfew.

She is still pending investigation, and no charges have been filed against the male service member as of this time. However, the female had come positive for Spice in a test the week before the incident, and both showed positive in a test 60 days after the incident (showing that both continued to use the drug). And they are still seeing each other.

So this goes as a rape statistic, and the command is processing her to be kicked out for substance abuse (and I imagine his command is doing the same thing, but he is in a different unit so I do not know for sure), even though the rape charge has essentially been ignored. For people like this, it is easier to just kick them out then to go through the mess of a rape trial. Everybody pretty much knows she was just trying to do this to get out of trouble for having a male in her room after hours, excess alcohol, and having used an illegal drug (he did it to me). But the presence of the drug even months later (as well as before the "rape") shows it was not a one time use, but a repeat pattern of drug abuse.

So she should be out in 1-2 months, and not with an Honorable Discharge. I imagine he will also. And this will go under the heading in the statistics as a "rape" which did not result in a conviction. Just as the previous one I described.

And my friend I mentioned earlier that was drugged? His was unrestricted, and he frequently gives talks to the new people in the unit of the dangers of leaving your drink unattended or accepting a drink from a stranger. His drug test came up positive for Rohyponol (Ruffies) and Cocaine. But the military recognized this was a drug given to him, and he was clear of all charges of drug use. But other then having to take some drug awareness classes, there is nothing bad on his record. And the civilian was never caught.

 

That's all he's done, aside from put me on ignore so he doesn't have to respond to me...

This is what happens when you deal with people who only have emotionally charged responses...

 

So you did not work for the DOD in their unit compiling stats for rapes and sexual assaults in the US military? I thought as much. So all you are providing here is tittle tattle from one unit.

 

Look at the bottom of my post.

Oh wow, there is the link. You yourself called me on it because of it's age.

Then look at my newer one, the one I did not post because I thoughtt he statistic inaccurate, with the 25% statistic.

Wow, there is the link to the reference there also.

You fail. Twice. How can you call me on a reference being wrong, if I did not put the reference in in the first place?

Are you getting dizzy yet? All this going in circles you do sure is maddening ya know.

 

Yes there is one link not two as you claimed. Try reading your own posts,it would help.

,
It is not newer,it is just an article dated from 2010 quoting the report from 1997. You could not find any up to date stats to prove your argument and you want to know why? Because rapes in civilian life in the USA have dramatically reduced since 1997,so your data is well out of date but you do not even know that because you fail to research.

 

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e03021472.pdf

That is the government information the 2010 article references. And funny, but you claim it is both quoting a 1997 report (which it does not, it references a 2002 report), but it does not have a source.

So it does indeed have a source. The source is very clearly referenced inside the article. It is hotlinked very clearly for everybody to see and check on. And that reference itself has a slew of references inside of it. It is extensively footnoted and backchecked.

Next inaccurate claim please?