Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Latest attorney tactic when defending client accused of rape: Women are good liars   ( usatoday.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, lawyer Steve Farese, Comment, Female, Tennessee rape case, businessman Mark Giannini, weaker sex, weaker sex comment, Memphis Area Women  
•       •       •

4518 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2017 at 6:59 AM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-04-21 01:44:55 AM  
Lawyer is simply going on his "Honestly, you're the biggest I've ever had" experience.
 
2017-04-21 03:11:03 AM  
Has he been hired by Fox News yet?
 
2017-04-21 03:15:43 AM  
Google search for: "women are good liars" - First link leads to the Daily Mail.

I think that means no woman has ever lied in human history.
 
2017-04-21 03:24:18 AM  
Clubb said this is an example of attitudes that she's trying to change: "What we wear, where we are, whether we are drunk, is not the reason for rape. Rape happens because men rape ... And it's wrong. It's a crime."

So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."
 
2017-04-21 05:29:20 AM  
Lawyers are better liars, so what?
 
2017-04-21 05:40:13 AM  
FTFA (my bold): Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.

That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for you.
 
2017-04-21 07:02:54 AM  
True, but irrelevant to the case.
 
2017-04-21 07:04:28 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: True, but irrelevant to the case.


Women don't lie
They provide alternative facts
 
2017-04-21 07:07:43 AM  
And by latest subby means age-old.
 
2017-04-21 07:08:04 AM  
He's right you know.jpg
 
2017-04-21 07:08:09 AM  
Click the comments
/I dare you
 
2017-04-21 07:11:23 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Click the comments
/I dare you


I wouldn't click on them with your cursor.
 
2017-04-21 07:11:58 AM  
I lie to women all the time.
/9" long and can go for a hour
 
2017-04-21 07:14:42 AM  
The truth is always the biggest troll.
 
2017-04-21 07:15:15 AM  
Wellllllllll.....womens IS tricksy.....

/ this is not a serious statement
 
2017-04-21 07:19:07 AM  
He ain't wrong.
 
2017-04-21 07:23:26 AM  
That is NOT the latest tactic. It is the basis of every competent rape defense (whether it is true or not).

He said...she said.....

Real story is usually in the middle.
 
2017-04-21 07:25:04 AM  

Bucky Katt: Has he been hired by Fox News yet?


Fox was outbid by MSNBC and HuffPo.

Get your fake news from pros, bro.
 
2017-04-21 07:25:16 AM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton.

Not necessarily.  I know juries are about the furthest thing from randomly selected, but supposing this one was (for lack of better information), as many as five of those women could completely buy into this defense and far from being bizarre, it'd be expected.  Heck, 42% of women voted for a JFP who publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women.
ichef.bbci.co.uk
That's nationwide.  This trial is in Tennessee.  Those ain't Women's Studies majors from UC-Berkeley packed in the box.

This isn't to disparage the accuser or back up the "women are liars" statement, but just to point out that women are NOT the unified supportive monolithic group they're portrayed as, so neither side is playing a particularly dumb numbers game.  Packing the jury with women is far from a sure bet for the prosecution, to the point that the defense was probably unfazed by it.  The defense has good reasons to be unconcerned with saying "women are liars" to a group of them.
 
2017-04-21 07:26:35 AM  
40 Helens agree
 
2017-04-21 07:27:38 AM  
If I'm the defendant, I'm feigning a heart attack right there in the court room to halt the proceedings until such time I can replace his stupid a$$.
 
2017-04-21 07:27:51 AM  
Were I on the jury, the moment he said that, I would have voted GUILTY, regardless of my previous thoughts.  His argument is a last-straw, hail-Mary, I-Got-Nothin' defense.
 
2017-04-21 07:28:09 AM  

Tanqueray: So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."


Women and men lie. Only men rape (in many jurisdictions).
 
2017-04-21 07:28:40 AM  

davidphogan: Google search for: "women are good liars" - First link leads to the Daily Mail.

I think that means no woman has ever lied in human history.


It may mean there are no women.
 
2017-04-21 07:28:41 AM  
"I love what you've done with your hair!"
"Thanks! I love your dress!"
"This old thing?! I bought it when they were running a discount!"
 
2017-04-21 07:30:16 AM  

dragonchild: Farking Clown Shoes: Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Not necessarily.  I know juries are about the furthest thing from randomly selected, but supposing this one was (for lack of better information), as many as five of those women could completely buy into this defense and far from being bizarre, it'd be expected.  Heck, 42% of women voted for a JFP who publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women.
[ichef.bbci.co.uk image 624x258]
That's nationwide.  This trial is in Tennessee.  Those ain't Women's Studies majors from UC-Berkeley packed in the box.

This isn't to disparage the accuser or back up the "women are liars" statement, but just to point out that women are NOT the unified supportive monolithic group they're portrayed as, so neither side is playing a particularly dumb numbers game.  Packing the jury with women is far from a sure bet for the prosecution, to the point that the defense was probably unfazed by it.  The defense has good reasons to be unconcerned with saying "women are liars" to a group of them.


Women seldom lie about rape.
 
2017-04-21 07:32:50 AM  

Another Government Employee: That is NOT the latest tactic. It is the basis of every competent rape defense (whether it is true or not).

He said...she said.....

Real story is usually in the middle.


I might disagree.
Most cases seem to be innocent men who are facing charges because the women had morning after regret, embarrassment or spite.
Or on the flip side, innocent women who were actually viciously and maliciously taped.
I doubt most cases are somewhere in between.

:just intuition. Not statistics.
 
2017-04-21 07:36:10 AM  
She was choked until she was unconscious, raped and woke up in the hospital. The assholes claiming "he's right you know" in this thread are as despicable as the lawyer and can bite me.
 
2017-04-21 07:37:02 AM  
FTFA: "Smart people will see it for what it is."

That is a very carefully worded statement. (A) he's well aware that he's being an asshole; (B) he's mounting a vigorous defence; (C) he believes his client is guilty as sin; and (D) he suspects that the jury is not particularly bright and will fail to "see it for what it is".
 
2017-04-21 07:44:40 AM  
I think men and women lie at about the same rate.  I also think that men and women are raised to look at things differently, and the end result is men and women seeing the same thing, and interpreting it very differently. The end result is when they present each other with the alternative view, women leave thinking the men are idiots and men thinking the women must have made stuff up.

To some degree this is getting better, as men are learning that women are not motivated by pleasing men 24/7 and women figure out that men actually have complex emotions, but it takes time to clear away tens of thousands of years of societal misconceptions.
 
2017-04-21 07:45:30 AM  

dragonchild: Farking Clown Shoes: Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Not necessarily.  I know juries are about the furthest thing from randomly selected, but supposing this one was (for lack of better information), as many as five of those women could completely buy into this defense and far from being bizarre, it'd be expected.  Heck, 42% of women voted for a JFP who publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women.
[ichef.bbci.co.uk image 624x258]
That's nationwide.  This trial is in Tennessee.  Those ain't Women's Studies majors from UC-Berkeley packed in the box.

This isn't to disparage the accuser or back up the "women are liars" statement, but just to point out that women are NOT the unified supportive monolithic group they're portrayed as, so neither side is playing a particularly dumb numbers game.  Packing the jury with women is far from a sure bet for the prosecution, to the point that the defense was probably unfazed by it.  The defense has good reasons to be unconcerned with saying "women are liars" to a group of them.


What another lawyer said about a rape victim to get a reduced sentence for the client:
"children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant's, are even more prone to such behavior"

I'll give you a hint, that lawyer was not Donald Trump.
 
2017-04-21 07:46:44 AM  

Johnny Rockets: He ain't wrong.


It's not like women have never made provably false rape accusations before......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game.  It's only fair.
 
2017-04-21 07:47:48 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: I lie to women all the time.
/9" long and can go for a hour


Ah, that's an easily exposed lie.
 
2017-04-21 07:54:42 AM  

RJReves: drjekel_mrhyde: I lie to women all the time.
/9" long and can go for a hour

Ah, that's an easily exposed lie.


Remember, you measure from the anus to the tip. It's the only accurate way.
 
2017-04-21 07:57:31 AM  

Johnny Rockets: He ain't wrong.


But that's not relevant.

If women were not superb prevaricators, our species would be extinct.
 
2017-04-21 07:58:54 AM  

NevynFox: RJReves: drjekel_mrhyde: I lie to women all the time.
/9" long and can go for a hour

Ah, that's an easily exposed lie.

Remember, you measure from the anus to the tip. It's the only accurate way.


Let me guess.

You carry seat cushions everywhere.
 
2017-04-21 08:00:03 AM  

dittybopper: Johnny Rockets: He ain't wrong.

It's not like women have never made provably false rape accusations before......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game.  It's only fair.


Yeah, you're right ditty.  Better to err on the side of caution and continue to push the belief that all women will lie about being raped for money or glory.  At least in your mind, that is.

Or in the minds of many others (since in many cases involving rape or gang rape in the US the last few years, the communities in question have almost always defended the boys and ostracized the girls for being 'temptresses').
 
2017-04-21 08:01:43 AM  
Do they not have rules of evidence down thar in Tennessee?
 
2017-04-21 08:06:07 AM  
Well as a proud grad of upstairs Hollywood Law School and Barber College, the thing that surprised me is do you really want to insult members of the jury?  Because this isn't 1965 - there are going to be women on that jury.  I've never ever heard of a courtroom tactic which involves pissing off the jury.

Indeed that is what one person commented on in the article:
"He stood in front of 11 women on a jury and said women are liars? That just doesn't even make the first bit of sense and it's despicable. Doesn't even sound like professional strategy for an attorney."

Maybe the trial attorney is doing the Defendant a favor because if I was the defendant and it doesn't go my way at trial I'd be looking at an appeal based on incompetent trial counsel.
 
2017-04-21 08:11:18 AM  

shastacola: She was choked until she was unconscious, raped and woke up in the hospital. The assholes claiming "he's right you know" in this thread are as despicable as the lawyer and can bite me.


So you would prefer to throw out the Sixth Amendment?

We have an adversarial system of justice for a reason.  This is part of it, unseemly as it may be, and *YES*, there are provable cases where women have lied about being raped.  It is for the jury to decide who is more credible.

But subby's headline implies that women *NEVER* lie about being raped, which is patently and, as I said, *PROVABLY* false.  According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, researchers agree that the rate of actual false accusations (as opposed to those that are merely "unproven") is something between 2 to 10%.  Even on the low end, that means that 1 out of every 50 rape allegations is due to a woman lying about being raped.  On the high end, 1 out of every 10.  I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Certainly, even the low number (1 out of 50 accusations is false) is high enough that the credibility of the person making the accusation is fair game, even without the Sixth Amendment coming into play.
 
2017-04-21 08:11:45 AM  

RJReves: NevynFox: RJReves: drjekel_mrhyde: I lie to women all the time.
/9" long and can go for a hour

Ah, that's an easily exposed lie.

Remember, you measure from the anus to the tip. It's the only accurate way.

Let me guess.

You carry seat cushions everywhere.


No, just my trusty hemorrhoid donut.
 
2017-04-21 08:11:46 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-04-21 08:14:55 AM  
www.troll.me
 
2017-04-21 08:15:30 AM  

Resident Muslim: Or on the flip side, innocent women who were actually viciously and maliciously taped.

This is a myth propagated by the "victim's promiscuity" defense as well as prosecutors' reluctance to proceed with rape cases where such a defense is likely to work.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but yeah, if you just look at legal cases this appears to be reality.  More general surveys indicate promiscuous women are deliberately targeted by rapists precisely because they know their victims' sexual history is likely to be used against them in court.  By far the easiest targets for rape?  Prostitutes, since they're by definition promiscuous and criminals to boot.  Getting raped is practically routine for streetwalkers coontil/unless they get a pimp, which has its own problems including its own package of regularly scheduled rape) and they don't even bother reporting it, because A) they'd never get a conviction, B) they can't afford a lawyer anyway, C) they're breaking the law and D) half the time it's a cop committing the rape.

dittybopper: It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game. It's only fair.

It has jack to do about fairness and everything to do with getting it right.  Setting aside cases of mistaken identity, if the accused isn't a rapist then the accuser has to be a lair (or at least wrong) so of course the defense has to question the accuser's credibility.  If every accusation was taken at face value then every court case would be farcical.
The problem is that rape defense is so caught up in playing the odds that it perpetuates its own counterproductive stereotypes.  When every victim has to be chaste and traumatized to get a conviction, it's normal women who get screwed.
 
2017-04-21 08:16:55 AM  

dragonchild: Farking Clown Shoes: Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Not necessarily.  I know juries are about the furthest thing from randomly selected, but supposing this one was (for lack of better information), as many as five of those women could completely buy into this defense and far from being bizarre, it'd be expected.  Heck, 42% of women voted for a JFP who publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women.
[ichef.bbci.co.uk image 624x258]
That's nationwide.  This trial is in Tennessee.  Those ain't Women's Studies majors from UC-Berkeley packed in the box.

This isn't to disparage the accuser or back up the "women are liars" statement, but just to point out that women are NOT the unified supportive monolithic group they're portrayed as, so neither side is playing a particularly dumb numbers game.  Packing the jury with women is far from a sure bet for the prosecution, to the point that the defense was probably unfazed by it.  The defense has good reasons to be unconcerned with saying "women are liars" to a group of them.


Also, women seem to be harder on other women.
 
2017-04-21 08:17:42 AM  

dragonchild: The problem is that rape defense prosecution is so caught up in playing the odds

FTFM
 
2017-04-21 08:20:19 AM  
"People can be very good at lying,"

especially lawyers
 
2017-04-21 08:20:32 AM  
Women are from Venus and men are from Mars.  And frankly I've never trusted a Venusian in my life.
 
2017-04-21 08:21:27 AM  

Another Government Employee: That is NOT the latest tactic. It is the basis of every competent rape defense (whether it is true or not).

He said...she said.....

Real story is usually in the middle.


So he half-raped her?
 
2017-04-21 08:23:18 AM  
I bet he gets all the girls.

Defense attorneying. How does that work again?
 
2017-04-21 08:27:45 AM  

JackieRabbit: I bet he gets all the girls.

Defense attorneying. How does that work again?


It doesn't work like that if you actually want to keep your clients out of jail.

Again an obvious point nobody seems to get here, you don't insult the members of the jury.
 
2017-04-21 08:27:57 AM  
Was it about busting up the chifferobe?
 
2017-04-21 08:32:46 AM  
I wonder if he has daughters.
 
2017-04-21 08:38:43 AM  

RJReves: Yankees Team Gynecologist: True, but irrelevant to the case.

Women don't lie
They provide alternative facts


I swear it's your baby.
 
2017-04-21 08:39:41 AM  

NevynFox: RJReves: NevynFox: RJReves: drjekel_mrhyde: I lie to women all the time.
/9" long and can go for a hour

Ah, that's an easily exposed lie.

Remember, you measure from the anus to the tip. It's the only accurate way.

Let me guess.

You carry seat cushions everywhere.

No, just my trusty hemorrhoid donut.


micalecabinets.com.au
 
2017-04-21 08:43:52 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Yeah, you're right ditty.  Better to err on the side of caution and continue to push the belief that all women will lie about being raped for money or glory.  At least in your mind, that is.


Sure, let's just believe every person who makes an allegation, without ever examining whether it's actually true or not.  Because women *NEVER* lie about stuff.  They are too pure and wholesome and never do anything wrong.

Now that that's out of the way, do you have a specific problem with the statement "It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game."?

Because that's pretty much the underlying bedrock principle of our justice system.  The accused have the right to confront the witness in open court.  It's right there in the Constitution.  It's in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  You don't like it, argue for an amendment to get rid of it.

Or do you think there should be special rules that only apply to women?  Because that's what you seem to be implying.

Rape is most definitely a heinous crime, deserving of our full disapprobation and stiff penalties for those who actually commit it.  Just because that is so, doesn't mean that the Nifongian idea that the woman is always telling the truth is correct.  You must admit that false rape allegations happen, after all, I posted 3 cases where it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the alleged rape(s) never occurred.

Now, by virtue of the fact that I work on a college campus, I'm a "mandated reporter" under Title IX.  If someone comes to me with a sexual assault/rape allegation, I have to report it, whether I believe it to be credible or not.  And I'm OK with that, as I most certainly won't have all the facts available to me, and it's not my job to investigate that sort of thing.

But this is different.  It's a court of law.  It is the purpose of the court to find the facts, to decide whether the accused or accuser is more credible.  If the attorney in question has some evidence that the woman was lying, that's fair game.  If he doesn't, and he's just blowing smoke at the jury, well, that's just an inevitable side effect of our adversarial judicial system.  It is his job to defend his client, after all.

Now, go ahead and point out where I'm being unreasonable in any way.


*I have concerns about the "Dear Colleague Letter" which was issued in
 
2017-04-21 08:44:08 AM  

GORDON: RJReves: Yankees Team Gynecologist: True, but irrelevant to the case.

Women don't lie
They provide alternative facts

I swear it's your baby.


I went to the tanning salon while I was pregnant.
That's why his skin tone is, um, more 'tanned'.
Honestly Honeybunch!
 
2017-04-21 08:54:04 AM  

dragonchild: dittybopper: It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game. It's only fair.

It has jack to do about fairness and everything to do with getting it right.


That's a contradictory statement.  You *CAN'T* get it right unless it is fair.  That means both sides have the opportunity

Oh, sure, you'll occasionally get it right simply by the law of large numbers. but if a criminal defendant isn't allowed to try to impeach the credibility of the accuser, then the entire justice system will collapse into a kangaroo court.  And there will be no

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this is so.

You're offended that the defense attorney called the accuser a liar.  Fine.  Now tell me why as a general principle a defense lawyer shouldn't be allowed to do that in court, as applied to all cases.  Would you be offended if the attorney for woman defendant in a (non-sexual) assault case called the male accuser a liar?  Why or why not?
 
2017-04-21 08:54:18 AM  

SirEattonHogg: JackieRabbit: I bet he gets all the girls.

Defense attorneying. How does that work again?

It doesn't work like that if you actually want to keep your clients out of jail.

Again an obvious point nobody seems to get here, you don't insult the members of the jury.


Ever been called for jury duty? Lawyers attempt to pack a jury with the most stupid and manipulatable people possible. Women tend to hate other women; the stupider they are, the more true this is. So an attorney telling a jury packed with stupid women that women are good liars is just going to get them feeling smug and nodding yes.

Trials aren't so much about the truth so much as a cleverly crafted variations on the truth.
 
2017-04-21 08:58:06 AM  

dittybopper: dragonchild: dittybopper: It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game. It's only fair.

It has jack to do about fairness and everything to do with getting it right.

That's a contradictory statement.  You *CAN'T* get it right unless it is fair.  That means both sides have the opportunity

Oh, sure, you'll occasionally get it right simply by the law of large numbers. but if a criminal defendant isn't allowed to try to impeach the credibility of the accuser, then the entire justice system will collapse into a kangaroo court.  And there will be no

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this is so.

You're offended that the defense attorney called the accuser a liar.  Fine.  Now tell me why as a general principle a defense lawyer shouldn't be allowed to do that in court, as applied to all cases.  Would you be offended if the attorney for woman defendant in a (non-sexual) assault case called the male accuser a liar?  Why or why not?


Wow.  I left a number of unfinished sentences there.  I blame the phone calls.

That means both sides have the opportunityto try to convince the jury that the other side is lying.

And there will be no possible way to get actual, for real justice, instead of the false "social justice".  Justice only ever happens at the retail level.  Never wholesale.
 
2017-04-21 09:05:31 AM  

dragonchild: Resident Muslim: Or on the flip side, innocent women who were actually viciously and maliciously taped.
This is a myth propagated by the "victim's promiscuity" defense as well as prosecutors' reluctance to proceed with rape cases where such a defense is likely to work.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but yeah, if you just look at legal cases this appears to be reality.  More general surveys indicate promiscuous women are deliberately targeted by rapists precisely because they know their victims' sexual history is likely to be used against them in court.  By far the easiest targets for rape?  Prostitutes, since they're by definition promiscuous and criminals to boot.  Getting raped is practically routine for streetwalkers coontil/unless they get a pimp, which has its own problems including its own package of regularly scheduled rape) and they don't even bother reporting it, because A) they'd never get a conviction, B) they can't afford a lawyer anyway, C) they're breaking the law and D) half the time it's a cop committing the rape.
dittybopper: It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game. It's only fair.
It has jack to do about fairness and everything to do with getting it right.  Setting aside cases of mistaken identity, if the accused isn't a rapist then the accuser has to be a lair (or at least wrong) so of course the defense has to question the accuser's credibility.  If every accusation was taken at face value then every court case would be farcical.
The problem is that rape defense is so caught up in playing the odds that it perpetuates its own counterproductive stereotypes.  When every victim has to be chaste and traumatized to get a conviction, it's normal women who get screwed.


It seems even the Fark filter has picked up Fark's sick sense of humor.
 
2017-04-21 09:15:24 AM  
Well, they're not wrong.
 
2017-04-21 09:16:03 AM  
Yeah, they are.

Not sure how that applies here more than anywhere else though.
 
2017-04-21 09:16:54 AM  

dragonchild: Resident Muslim: Or on the flip side, innocent women who were actually viciously and maliciously taped.
This is a myth propagated by the "victim's promiscuity" defense as well as prosecutors' reluctance to proceed with rape cases where such a defense is likely to work.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but yeah, if you just look at legal cases this appears to be reality.  More general surveys indicate promiscuous women are deliberately targeted by rapists precisely because they know their victims' sexual history is likely to be used against them in court.  By far the easiest targets for rape?  Prostitutes, since they're by definition promiscuous and criminals to boot.  Getting raped is practically routine for streetwalkers coontil/unless they get a pimp, which has its own problems including its own package of regularly scheduled rape) and they don't even bother reporting it, because A) they'd never get a conviction, B) they can't afford a lawyer anyway, C) they're breaking the law and D) half the time it's a cop committing the rape.


citation needed
 
2017-04-21 09:24:02 AM  

Lady J: I wonder if he has daughters.


I was wondering if his mom still around, she needs to smack him with a frying pan
 
2017-04-21 09:25:49 AM  

dittybopper: That's a contradictory statement. You *CAN'T* get it right unless it is fair.

Nope.  I used to think that way because it seems intuitive, but it's a dangerously pervasive misconception.  Right and fair are two different things, and that's the problem.  And I'm starting to realize many problems in this country are directly attributable to misguided attempts at "fairness" at the expense of what is right.

Let's assume for the sake of argument a rape case where the accuser is stereotypically pure and innocent, the very reflection of what far-right theocrats would have a young woman be:  naive, honest, and completely oblivious about sex.  Hell, let's go the full extreme and make the victim a prepubescent minor instead.  And let's assume the accused is an infamous longtime and dangerous sex offender and the only reason the victim is even alive is that some witnesses walked in on the scene by sheer chance.  I'm basically using reductio ad absurdum for simplicity, because this point is harder to see in cases of nuance.  But the above scenario is at least within the realm of possibility.
It is most certainly UNFAIR that the accused gets a defense at all, let alone a day in court.  Trials are long and expensive and stressful and far from fallible.  The accused could get off on a technicality.  The judge could be crooked.  The accused could be wealthy and politically connected.  If the prosecution farks up then more people are put at risk.  Common sense would basically say we should just skip the trial and go straight to mob justice.  THAT's fair.
But we give the accused a defense anyway because that's the right thing to do, even if it's massively unfair to the victim, for reasons stressed by the Founding Fathers and you're well familiar with.  We could make an exception for my hypothetical example, but justice is an absurdly easy thing to corrupt, which is why our system took great pains to be adversarial (which has its own problem) and still very frequently gets it wrong.   It's in plain view regarding capital punishment.  It's fair to end the life of a murderer -- take a life and your own should be forfeit -- but in reality, states like Texas abuse it as a form of ethnic cleansing lite.  This is one of the few areas where we're a nation of laws, not people, or it'd be even worse.  Yet it's in plain view in this thread that many people would do away with this for reasons understandable and ludicrous.

The things our country get right have nothing to do with fairness.
 
2017-04-21 09:39:02 AM  
While we have our rape dander up, does anyone here work in the processing or rape kits?
 
2017-04-21 09:41:01 AM  

dittybopper: shastacola: She was choked until she was unconscious, raped and woke up in the hospital. The assholes claiming "he's right you know" in this thread are as despicable as the lawyer and can bite me.

So you would prefer to throw out the Sixth Amendment?

We have an adversarial system of justice for a reason.  This is part of it, unseemly as it may be, and *YES*, there are provable cases where women have lied about being raped.  It is for the jury to decide who is more credible.

But subby's headline implies that women *NEVER* lie about being raped, which is patently and, as I said, *PROVABLY* false.  According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, researchers agree that the rate of actual false accusations (as opposed to those that are merely "unproven") is something between 2 to 10%.  Even on the low end, that means that 1 out of every 50 rape allegations is due to a woman lying about being raped.  On the high end, 1 out of every 10.  I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Certainly, even the low number (1 out of 50 accusations is false) is high enough that the credibility of the person making the accusation is fair game, even without the Sixth Amendment coming into play.


No it doesn't.  That's a strawman you created so you could go off on your predictable ranting about evil women who falsely accuse men of rape.
 
2017-04-21 09:41:56 AM  

Lady J: I wonder if he has daughters.


I have no idea but, I did find a picture of his father.
img.fark.net
 
2017-04-21 09:43:15 AM  

fireclown: While we have our rape dander up, does anyone here work in the processing or rape kits?

Rape kits get processed?
 
2017-04-21 09:43:55 AM  
Woman threatens Uber driver with rape and domestice abuse allegations
Youtube qVyujM8IVOI

Woman threatens Uber driver with rape and domestice abuse allegations
 
2017-04-21 09:46:42 AM  

PghThermal: dragonchild: Resident Muslim: Or on the flip side, innocent women who were actually viciously and maliciously taped.
This is a myth propagated by the "victim's promiscuity" defense as well as prosecutors' reluctance to proceed with rape cases where such a defense is likely to work.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but yeah, if you just look at legal cases this appears to be reality.  More general surveys indicate promiscuous women are deliberately targeted by rapists precisely because they know their victims' sexual history is likely to be used against them in court.  By far the easiest targets for rape?  Prostitutes, since they're by definition promiscuous and criminals to boot.  Getting raped is practically routine for streetwalkers coontil/unless they get a pimp, which has its own problems including its own package of regularly scheduled rape) and they don't even bother reporting it, because A) they'd never get a conviction, B) they can't afford a lawyer anyway, C) they're breaking the law and D) half the time it's a cop committing the rape.

citation needed


Do you need actual statistics?
You won't get them.
Do you seek claims by prostitutes/case workers?
You will find many.
 
2017-04-21 09:50:25 AM  

dragonchild: fireclown: While we have our rape dander up, does anyone here work in the processing or rape kits?
Rape kits get processed?


That's kind of my concern.  I've been pondering the notion of "doing good" for a bit now.  One of my thoughts is to lend some volunteer effort to the backlog.  I've got a good deal of lab experience, could easily pass whatever background tests are needed, but there doesn't seem to be a clear path for this.  I was hoping for a police/LE lab tech with some insight.
 
2017-04-21 10:01:59 AM  

Gyrfalcon: dragonchild: Farking Clown Shoes: Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Not necessarily.  I know juries are about the furthest thing from randomly selected, but supposing this one was (for lack of better information), as many as five of those women could completely buy into this defense and far from being bizarre, it'd be expected.  Heck, 42% of women voted for a JFP who publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women.
[ichef.bbci.co.uk image 624x258]
That's nationwide.  This trial is in Tennessee.  Those ain't Women's Studies majors from UC-Berkeley packed in the box.

This isn't to disparage the accuser or back up the "women are liars" statement, but just to point out that women are NOT the unified supportive monolithic group they're portrayed as, so neither side is playing a particularly dumb numbers game.  Packing the jury with women is far from a sure bet for the prosecution, to the point that the defense was probably unfazed by it.  The defense has good reasons to be unconcerned with saying "women are liars" to a group of them.

Women seldom lie about rape.


Without commenting on TFA or the guy in that trial because I know literally next to nothing about it.  Your statement is patently untrue.  There is an epidemic of women lying about sexual assault on colleges.
 
2017-04-21 10:03:48 AM  
aaand I'm out
 
2017-04-21 10:08:15 AM  

dittybopper: dittybopper: dragonchild: dittybopper: It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game. It's only fair.

It has jack to do about fairness and everything to do with getting it right.

That's a contradictory statement.  You *CAN'T* get it right unless it is fair.  That means both sides have the opportunity

Oh, sure, you'll occasionally get it right simply by the law of large numbers. but if a criminal defendant isn't allowed to try to impeach the credibility of the accuser, then the entire justice system will collapse into a kangaroo court.  And there will be no

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this is so.

You're offended that the defense attorney called the accuser a liar.  Fine.  Now tell me why as a general principle a defense lawyer shouldn't be allowed to do that in court, as applied to all cases.  Would you be offended if the attorney for woman defendant in a (non-sexual) assault case called the male accuser a liar?  Why or why not?

Wow.  I left a number of unfinished sentences there.  I blame the phone calls.

That means both sides have the opportunityto try to convince the jury that the other side is lying.

And there will be no possible way to get actual, for real justice, instead of the false "social justice".  Justice only ever happens at the retail level.  Never wholesale.


You're especially agitated today.  You must have emotional turmoil connected to the issue.
 
2017-04-21 10:10:25 AM  
"The woman testified Giannini choked her and the next thing she remembered, she was waking up at the hospital. Much of the trial testimony this week was so horrific mainstream news outlets couldn't publish it. "
-------------

"
The state's first witness is retired Lt. Kevin Helms of the Shelby County Sheriff's Office. Prosecutor Neal Oldham is asking him about going to Giannini's house as part of the law enforcement investigation of Giannini. Helms said that after he arrived, a female said over a box at the gate that Giannini wasn't there.

A detective knew how to dismantle the gate and law enforcement proceeded down the lengthy driveway. Officers checked a pool house and Helms walked to a tree area. It was warm that morning and dew was on the ground. He could see tracks as if someone had run or left the area quickly.

About 40 minutes later, Giannini walked up the driveway and said he had been on a walk. Helms showed photos of scratches on Giannini's body that Helms described as fairly fresh. Giannini also appeared to be sweaty."
----------------------------------------

"The next witness is a former housekeeper of Giannini. She is testifying about when Giannini called her to help a girl who needed a ride home. He said she was really drunk and that she kept going in and out of his pool house.
"He thought she was guzzling liquor in there," she said.

The housekeeper saw a woman in a lawn chair. He told the woman, "wake up baby I got you a ride, wake up."
"She was out of it," the housekeeper told prosecutor Jessica Banti.

Giannini's demeanor was rushed and frantic, the housekeeper said.

Once in the housekeeper's car, the woman was in and out of sleeping or crying. The woman smelled like vodka, the housekeeper said. The housekeeper helped her up to her motel room."
-------------------------------

"The housekeeper testified she saw Giannini destroy his cell phone. She said he threw it on the ground, took a rock and started smashing it.

"Get rid of this," he told her, she testified. She said this occurred while law enforcement was outside the home.
"
-----------------------------

"The housekeeper is testifying she took Giannini to get a new phone. He also asked her to research countries that don't extradite people to the United States, she said.

Giannini also asked her to go to Waffle House and sit back and listen to what the woman was saying, the housekeeper testified.
(The victim in the case worked at Waffle House and the housekeeper had previously driven her to the motel where she was staying)."
--------------------------------------

http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/courts/2017/04/19/court-bl​o​g-day-2-trial-businessman-mark-giannini-set-begin/100642566/
 
2017-04-21 10:18:41 AM  
"The victim testifies Giannini took her on a tour of the house - they went into the pool house.

He asked if she would like something to drink. "He was telling me about his dog," she said. Giannini then asked if she liked orange soda, she testified. She agreed that she liked orange soda, and she didn't remember seeing alcohol. He gave her a cup full of ice and what appeared to be orange soda. It tasted like orange soda and she didn't taste any alcohol. "I started to drink it," she said. "It was hot that day. I was thirsty."

He had another cup with the same color drink, she said. She noticed the décor in the house, including a buffalo head and a piece that resembled a skeleton chained by its feet and hands. She felt nervous because she was in a strange place. He had mentioned that the house was in a secluded area.

She said he grabbed her by the back of her head, by her hair and pulled her to him. He started kissing her and said she smelled like cigarettes. He told her go brush her teeth.

"I told him that I wanted to go home," she said. She said she cried.

"He told me I wasn't going home and I had a job interview to do," she said.

She said she thought of her kids. "I was afraid," she said, explaining that a stranger had just grabbed her and said she couldn't go home."
-----------------------------------------

"When she came out of the pool house, she said Giannini was naked by the pool. He said to take off her clothes and she did.

"I was doing what I thought would get me home," she said. "He pulled me down into the pool, put my forehead on the edge of the pool and got behind me and started raping me," she said.

She said he called her names and said that he was good for an old man. She testified she was bleeding. "It hurt," she said. She hung her head and was crying as she sat on the witness stand.

At one point she said Giannini said "Aw you want to go home? You don't like this?"

He lead her upstairs and laid an American flag towel on a bed. "And that's where he continued raping me," she said.

"He told me that was my job interview," she said. "I kept crying and saying that I wanted to go home. I started praying out loud.""
--------------------------

"Prosecutor Carrie Bush is showing photos of bruising to the woman's chest and neck.

"It happened while I was being assaulted, sexually assaulted," the woman said.

The woman testified Giannini choked her and the next she remembered she was waking up at the hospital."
----------------------------------------------
http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/courts/2017/04/18/live-blo​g​-jurors-arriving-trial-businessman-mark-giannini/100017328/
 
2017-04-21 10:29:23 AM  
thorpe: [snip]

All those details of the case in question are really going to get in the way of the hate boner of the people who want to discuss unrelated false accusations instead.
 
2017-04-21 10:35:59 AM  
(sigh)
 
2017-04-21 10:44:46 AM  
Thanks for the summary thorpe.  Guy is probably going to get convicted and easy to see why defense is trying to muddy the waters here.
 
2017-04-21 10:46:54 AM  

Ghastly: Lawyer is simply going on his "Honestly, you're the biggest I've ever had" experience.


Lawyer knows all he has to do is convince one person to hold out. Take 12 people of either sex and put forth an argument (women are liars for men charged in rape cases, men are brutes for women charged with murdering their SO) and you stand marginal a chance of finding at least one member buying it, especially a member the same sex as the accused.

This is what you expect when you promote an appeal to "feelings" instead of facts in the law.
 
2017-04-21 10:52:21 AM  
Hmm. Googled "Are women better at lying than men?" and got many results.  Apparently it has been scientifically proven true.  Or false. Or true, but they just do it to be nice and not hurt their partners' feelings.
 
2017-04-21 10:53:26 AM  

dittybopper: Johnny Rockets: He ain't wrong.

It's not like women have never made provably false rape accusations before......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game.  It's only fair.


Your credibility is fair game. Some myth from a multi-thousand year old book about the credibility of everyone of your gender? Not so much.

Specifically, he can absolutely bring up evidence of the accuser's lack of credibility, such as whether she has any past convictions for fraud. He can't claim "all women lie, like the slutty lying liars who doomed us all by farking a snake and stealing an apple," because that's not about her credibility.
 
2017-04-21 10:56:22 AM  

dittybopper: shastacola: She was choked until she was unconscious, raped and woke up in the hospital. The assholes claiming "he's right you know" in this thread are as despicable as the lawyer and can bite me.

So you would prefer to throw out the Sixth Amendment?

We have an adversarial system of justice for a reason.  This is part of it, unseemly as it may be, and *YES*, there are provable cases where women have lied about being raped.  It is for the jury to decide who is more credible.


You'd have a point if those women were the accuser here. They are not. The accuser in this case was not in any of those other cases.

It is for the jury to decide who in this case is more credible based on the testimony and evidence in this case. It is not for the jury to decide someone is not credible because of their gender, their race, their religion, or because people like them lied in an entirely different case.
 
2017-04-21 10:57:37 AM  

dittybopper: But subby's headline implies that women *NEVER* lie about being raped, which is patently and, as I said, *PROVABLY* false.


No, Subby's headline implies that it's stupid to make a broad (heh) generalization. You're responding by making a broad generalization. Good jorb.
 
2017-04-21 11:04:49 AM  
Women are good liars indeed, but you still need to prove that they, like anyone else, are actually lying.

/self-reported for sexism
//might as well just say it
///third
 
2017-04-21 11:23:39 AM  
Rape threads on Fark are disgusting.  So many terrible terrible people in our midst.
 
2017-04-21 11:29:59 AM  
I'm not 100% sure we can just throw his arguments out from an evolutionary standpoint.
 
2017-04-21 11:30:28 AM  

Theaetetus: You'd have a point if those women were the accuser here. They are not. The accuser in this case was not in any of those other cases.


The moral poutrage which led to the Rolling Stone story (and others) spiraling into other criminality directed at the accused, is directly affecting this case. Because we are supposed to judge with feelings (#BelieveHer) according to feminists, that gets translated into other cases, whether you like it or not. If you want what you're describing we're going to have to stop that culture of feelings, and start relying on facts.

Theaetetus: It is for the jury to decide who in this case is more credible based on the testimony and evidence in this case. It is not for the jury to decide someone is not credible because of their gender, their race, their religion, or because people like them lied in an entirely different case.


This lawyer is appealing to feelings because he has nothing else and it gives him a marginal chance of winning. If you don't like that the alleged victim here may be judged based on other people's lies, maybe you shouldn't be promoting a culture of feelings instead of facts.
 
2017-04-21 11:32:35 AM  
i.imgflip.com
 
2017-04-21 11:36:36 AM  

dittybopper: Johnny Rockets: He ain't wrong.

It's not like women have never made provably false rape accusations before......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game.  It's only fair.


Physical evidence and defendant behavioral history supports the allegations... but some women were unable to legally prove rape a couple times and there was this one girl who tried to cover up her mistake, so THIS one *must* be lying.  And everyone knows women with a criminal record can't be raped.  Once you cross the law, your vagina and self-sovreignity are forfeit.  Checkmate, victims.  #americanjustice #womengetscrewed
 
2017-04-21 11:41:43 AM  

Johnny Rockets: He ain't wrong.


Yes, he is.

He is wrong.

Everything about his argument is shiat.

Not only not right, but wrong, and on several levels of modern decency and American civil rights.

Sooo wrong.

If measured on a scale of 1 to weapons of mass destruction, this guy comes in at Branch Dividians Compound.
 
2017-04-21 11:43:08 AM  

dittybopper: You're offended that the defense attorney called the accuser a liar.


The offensiveness is that the accuser was described as more likely to be lying because she's a woman. Sure, accuse someone lying and try to pick holes in their story, but don't base your attack on their membership of a group. "The accuser is likely to be lying because she's a woman and women lie" is the same obnoxious argument as "The defendant is likely to be a rapist because he is black and black men rape" or "The witness is likely to be a fraud because he is Jewish and Jews cheat".
 
2017-04-21 11:44:03 AM  

Lady J: I wonder if he has daughters.


Yes - his wife told him she was on the pill.

/Err... that's probably not going to be a very popular joke, is it?
 
2017-04-21 11:46:50 AM  

Lady J: I wonder if he has daughters.


A few years ago the advocate for the defence in a  Scottish rape trial made the teenaged victim hold up in the court the underwear she was wearing when she was raped and humiliated her accusations of sluttishness. She killed herself shortly afterwards. I wonder how proud the advocate was of his work. His client was found guilty and gaoled.
 
2017-04-21 11:46:57 AM  

thorpe: "The victim testifies Giannini took her on a tour of the house - they went into the pool house.

He asked if she would like something to drink. "He was telling me about his dog," she said. Giannini then asked if she liked orange soda, she testified. She agreed that she liked orange soda, and she didn't remember seeing alcohol. He gave her a cup full of ice and what appeared to be orange soda. It tasted like orange soda and she didn't taste any alcohol. "I started to drink it," she said. "It was hot that day. I was thirsty."

He had another cup with the same color drink, she said. She noticed the décor in the house, including a buffalo head and a piece that resembled a skeleton chained by its feet and hands. She felt nervous because she was in a strange place. He had mentioned that the house was in a secluded area.

She said he grabbed her by the back of her head, by her hair and pulled her to him. He started kissing her and said she smelled like cigarettes. He told her go brush her teeth.

"I told him that I wanted to go home," she said. She said she cried.

"He told me I wasn't going home and I had a job interview to do," she said.

She said she thought of her kids. "I was afraid," she said, explaining that a stranger had just grabbed her and said she couldn't go home."
-----------------------------------------

"When she came out of the pool house, she said Giannini was naked by the pool. He said to take off her clothes and she did.

"I was doing what I thought would get me home," she said. "He pulled me down into the pool, put my forehead on the edge of the pool and got behind me and started raping me," she said.

She said he called her names and said that he was good for an old man. She testified she was bleeding. "It hurt," she said. She hung her head and was crying as she sat on the witness stand.

At one point she said Giannini said "Aw you want to go home? You don't like this?"

He lead her upstairs and laid an American flag towel on a bed. "And that's where ...


You will definitely taste alcohol in any drink that will get you drunk. He did not take her to his house against her will. At no time did she tell him to stop or say the words "NO". At no time did she try to escape. At no time did the man threaten her with violence or attempt to prevent her from leaving. At no time did she start screaming or fighting. When exactly did this become a rape; when the woman thought to herself that she wanted to leave? How exactly did she let the attacker know that he was raping her?

I have 2 daughters and if either of them were raped you would be able to immediately identify their attacker in a crowded room. He would be the guy with a gouged out eye, scratched face and multiple stab wounds. He may have gotten it in but after he did there is a good chance that only a little stub would be left dangling.

I'm sorry this lady got raped but instead of giving subtle hints to her attacker maybe she should have made it very clear to him that she did didn't want to have sex. Maybe she shouldn't have willingly taken her clothes off??? Maybe she should have made a run for it when he asked her to brush her teeth. Maybe she could have told the guy "no" or "stop" or scream for help.
 
2017-04-21 11:47:14 AM  

inglixthemad: Because we are supposed to judge with feelings (#BelieveHer) according to feminists


That's not what that means. That's not what any of this means.
 
2017-04-21 11:56:43 AM  

SocratesNutz: I'm sorry this lady got raped but instead of giving subtle hints to her attacker maybe she should have made it very clear to him that she did didn't want to have sex. Maybe she shouldn't have willingly taken her clothes off??? Maybe she should have made a run for it when he asked her to brush her teeth. Maybe she could have told the guy "no" or "stop" or scream for help.


Or maybe the guy who raped her shouldn't have raped her.

/the house was in an isolated location, what help could she scream for?
 
2017-04-21 11:57:25 AM  
It is true that women often lie about rape.

We often commit the lie of omission, and never say that it happened.
 
2017-04-21 11:57:48 AM  
tse1.mm.bing.net
What he was relying on.
 
2017-04-21 12:07:30 PM  

SocratesNutz: At no time did the man threaten her with violence or attempt to prevent her from leaving.


"I told him that I wanted to go home," she said. She said she cried.
"He told me I wasn't going home...," she said.
 
2017-04-21 12:10:02 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Because we are supposed to judge with feelings (#BelieveHer) according to feminists

That's not what that means. That's not what any of this means.


It's exactly what certain people sought to create, using the tag #BelieveHer. You are, unequivocally, supposed to support and believe a rape "victim" / "survivor". Note how it is given, because language is a powerful thing. Before a case is even adjudicated the status of "victim" or "survivor" is assigned. Because language has power, that means the accused must be guilty, because otherwise she couldn't be a "victim" or "survivor". When it is shown, especially in a high profile case, that the "victim" / "survivor" is lying it does a ton of credibility damage (by association) for every future claimant.

Abusing language like this leads to this being like the kid who cries wolf. Take a few high profile cases that end up with it being claimant "crying wolf", toss in a liberal helping of outrage (especially if it leads to violence or other crimes against the accused) from people rallying around the claimant, and it leads directly to backlash. Society will seek to punish someone for the lie(s) that generated so much public outrage, it's human nature.

I have no doubt the people who created the tag had good of intentions, nor do I doubt that those who want to automatically assign the status of "victim" or "survivor" have good intentions as well. The problem for everyone is the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
 
2017-04-21 12:10:23 PM  

Aracnix: If measured on a scale of 1 to weapons of mass destruction, this guy comes in at Branch Dividians Compound.


So...well below weapons of mass destruction rating then?
 
2017-04-21 12:19:21 PM  

Theaetetus: SocratesNutz: At no time did the man threaten her with violence or attempt to prevent her from leaving.

"I told him that I wanted to go home," she said. She said she cried.
"He told me I wasn't going home...," she said.


Maybe she wasn't going home at the moment, in which case it's a correct declarative statement-of-fact rather than a threat.

I.e.:
A: "I want to be an iguana."
B: "You are not an iguana."
 
2017-04-21 12:20:56 PM  

inglixthemad: Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Because we are supposed to judge with feelings (#BelieveHer) according to feminists

That's not what that means. That's not what any of this means.

It's exactly what certain people sought to create, using the tag #BelieveHer. You are, unequivocally, supposed to support and believe a rape "victim" / "survivor".


No, it really didn't mean that. It meant that, as in every single other instance of an accusation of a crime, you presume that the complaining witness' testimony is credible until proven otherwise. That's it. It's simply asking for the same exact standard used in literally every other case.
 
2017-04-21 12:23:22 PM  
Why is it that the people who repeatedly insist that accused rapists are innocent until proven guilty always claim that rape accusers are guilty of perjury, defamation, false reporting, etc., etc., unless they can prove their innocence?
 
2017-04-21 12:25:35 PM  

jshine: Theaetetus: SocratesNutz: At no time did the man threaten her with violence or attempt to prevent her from leaving.

"I told him that I wanted to go home," she said. She said she cried.
"He told me I wasn't going home...," she said.

Maybe she wasn't going home at the moment, in which case it's a correct declarative statement-of-fact rather than a threat.

I.e.:
A: "I want to be an iguana."
B: "You are not an iguana."


/ Since it is not readily apparent via text, the above was intended as sarcasm and is not to be taken seriously.
 
2017-04-21 12:28:06 PM  

dittybopper: dittybopper: dragonchild: dittybopper: It seems to me that if you are making an allegation of criminal behavior about another person, your credibility is fair game. It's only fair.

It has jack to do about fairness and everything to do with getting it right.

That's a contradictory statement.  You *CAN'T* get it right unless it is fair.  That means both sides have the opportunity

Oh, sure, you'll occasionally get it right simply by the law of large numbers. but if a criminal defendant isn't allowed to try to impeach the credibility of the accuser, then the entire justice system will collapse into a kangaroo court.  And there will be no

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this is so.

You're offended that the defense attorney called the accuser a liar.  Fine.  Now tell me why as a general principle a defense lawyer shouldn't be allowed to do that in court, as applied to all cases.  Would you be offended if the attorney for woman defendant in a (non-sexual) assault case called the male accuser a liar?  Why or why not?

Wow.  I left a number of unfinished sentences there.  I blame the phone calls.

That means both sides have the opportunityto try to convince the jury that the other side is lying.

And there will be no possible way to get actual, for real justice, instead of the false "social justice".  Justice only ever happens at the retail level.  Never wholesale.


In a rape trial, you cannot impeach the credibility of the witness/victim by claiming she was promiscuous, by claiming she has loose morals, by claiming she has lied about sex on other occasions so she must be lying now...in short, you cannot slut-shame her.

This attorney sneakily did so during his closing argument where opposing counsel cannot make any objections; nonetheless, what he did was wrong according to just about every rule of legal procedure on the books.

Please don't law, you're not good at it.
 
2017-04-21 12:29:19 PM  

jshine: Theaetetus: SocratesNutz: At no time did the man threaten her with violence or attempt to prevent her from leaving.

"I told him that I wanted to go home," she said. She said she cried.
"He told me I wasn't going home...," she said.

Maybe she wasn't going home at the moment, in which case it's a correct declarative statement-of-fact rather than a threat.

I.e.:
A: "I want to be an iguana."
B: "You are not an iguana."


A statutory rape apologist tacitly defending a rapist?  I'm shocked...
 
2017-04-21 12:32:28 PM  

mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist tacitly defending a rapist?  I'm shocked...


jshine: / Since it is not readily apparent via text, the above was intended as sarcasm and is not to be taken seriously.


See above.
 
2017-04-21 12:33:17 PM  

mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist


Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?
 
2017-04-21 12:36:24 PM  

SocratesNutz: thorpe: "The victim testifies Giannini took her on a tour of the house - they went into the pool house.

He asked if she would like something to drink. "He was telling me about his dog," she said. Giannini then asked if she liked orange soda, she testified. She agreed that she liked orange soda, and she didn't remember seeing alcohol. He gave her a cup full of ice and what appeared to be orange soda. It tasted like orange soda and she didn't taste any alcohol. "I started to drink it," she said. "It was hot that day. I was thirsty."

He had another cup with the same color drink, she said. She noticed the décor in the house, including a buffalo head and a piece that resembled a skeleton chained by its feet and hands. She felt nervous because she was in a strange place. He had mentioned that the house was in a secluded area.

She said he grabbed her by the back of her head, by her hair and pulled her to him. He started kissing her and said she smelled like cigarettes. He told her go brush her teeth.

"I told him that I wanted to go home," she said. She said she cried.

"He told me I wasn't going home and I had a job interview to do," she said.

She said she thought of her kids. "I was afraid," she said, explaining that a stranger had just grabbed her and said she couldn't go home."
-----------------------------------------

"When she came out of the pool house, she said Giannini was naked by the pool. He said to take off her clothes and she did.

"I was doing what I thought would get me home," she said. "He pulled me down into the pool, put my forehead on the edge of the pool and got behind me and started raping me," she said.

She said he called her names and said that he was good for an old man. She testified she was bleeding. "It hurt," she said. She hung her head and was crying as she sat on the witness stand.

At one point she said Giannini said "Aw you want to go home? You don't like this?"

He lead her upstairs and laid an American flag towel on a bed. "And that's where ...

You will definitely taste alcohol in any drink that will get you drunk. He did not take her to his house against her will. At no time did she tell him to stop or say the words "NO". At no time did she try to escape. At no time did the man threaten her with violence or attempt to prevent her from leaving. At no time did she start screaming or fighting. When exactly did this become a rape; when the woman thought to herself that she wanted to leave? How exactly did she let the attacker know that he was raping her?

I have 2 daughters and if either of them were raped you would be able to immediately identify their attacker in a crowded room. He would be the guy with a gouged out eye, scratched face and multiple stab wounds. He may have gotten it in but after he did there is a good chance that only a little stub would be left dangling.

I'm sorry this lady got raped but instead of giving subtle hints to her attacker maybe she should have made it very clear to him that she did didn't want to have sex. Maybe she shouldn't have willingly taken her clothes off??? Maybe she should have made a run for it when he asked her to brush her teeth. Maybe she could have told the guy "no" or "stop" or scream for help.


Ah, so being choked and beaten isn't ENOUGH for you, you prove rape. That she never consented to sex isn't enough. She had to explicitly say No, and only then it's rape?

I suppose that if she had said No, you'd be arguing implied consent anyway based on the tour of the house, and why didn't she fight back?
 
2017-04-21 12:39:04 PM  

jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?


I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.
 
2017-04-21 12:41:06 PM  

mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?

I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.


On what basis?  ...not because I'm offended -- Fark is too full of generalizations and poorly-formed assumptions to bother with that -- but I'm genuinely curious.

/ Chief.
 
2017-04-21 12:41:13 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I suppose that if she had said No, you'd be arguing implied consent anyway based on the tour of the house, and why didn't she fight back?


See, e.g.: 

SocratesNutz: At no time did she start screaming or fighting... I have 2 daughters and if either of them were raped you would be able to immediately identify their attacker in a crowded room. He would be the guy with a gouged out eye, scratched face and multiple stab wounds. He may have gotten it in but after he did there is a good chance that only a little stub would be left dangling.


Of course, what statements like that really do is signal to rapists that using drugs or alcohol is their best bet, since Socrates there will never believe they're rapists unless they have significant injuries. It's like he's giving them a roadmap to free rape. A rapemap, if you will.
 
2017-04-21 12:43:17 PM  

jshine: mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?

I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.

On what basis?  ...not because I'm offended -- Fark is too full of generalizations and poorly-formed assumptions to bother with that -- but I'm genuinely curious.

/ Chief.


I'm not your personal historian, I merely Farkied you as a statutory rape apologist after a thread where you staunchly defended statutory rape.  It helps me remember who isn't worth engaging with on other topics and threads.  I'm just not shocked to see you doing something similar in this thread.  About rape.
 
2017-04-21 12:46:43 PM  

mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?

I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.

On what basis?  ...not because I'm offended -- Fark is too full of generalizations and poorly-formed assumptions to bother with that -- but I'm genuinely curious.

/ Chief.

I'm not your personal historian, I merely Farkied you as a statutory rape apologist after a thread where you staunchly defended statutory rape.  It helps me remember who isn't worth engaging with on other topics and threads.  I'm just not shocked to see you doing something similar in this thread.  About rape.


As I posted before your reply; the only comment I actually made in this thread was to be taken tongue-in-cheek.

Seriously though, I'm curious which thread you're talking about, because I'd like to review it (and Fark seems to archive things indefinitely, so that should be do-able regardless of how old it is).  I'm sure there was something you're misconstruing, since your assigned-label is simply inaccurate, but it'd be interested to know just what post that was.
 
2017-04-21 12:51:14 PM  

jshine: mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?

I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.

On what basis?  ...not because I'm offended -- Fark is too full of generalizations and poorly-formed assumptions to bother with that -- but I'm genuinely curious.

/ Chief.

I'm not your personal historian, I merely Farkied you as a statutory rape apologist after a thread where you staunchly defended statutory rape.  It helps me remember who isn't worth engaging with on other topics and threads.  I'm just not shocked to see you doing something similar in this thread.  About rape.

As I posted before your reply; the only comment I actually made in this thread was to be taken tongue-in-cheek.

Seriously though, I'm curious which thread you're talking about, because I'd like to review it (and Fark seems to archive things indefinitely, so that should be do-able regardless of how old it is).  I'm sure there was something you're misconstruing, since your assigned-label is simply inaccurate, but it'd be interested to know just what post that was.


Have fun searching.
 
2017-04-21 12:55:40 PM  

mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?

I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.

On what basis?  ...not because I'm offended -- Fark is too full of generalizations and poorly-formed assumptions to bother with that -- but I'm genuinely curious.

/ Chief.

I'm not your personal historian, I merely Farkied you as a statutory rape apologist after a thread where you staunchly defended statutory rape.  It helps me remember who isn't worth engaging with on other topics and threads.  I'm just not shocked to see you doing something similar in this thread.  About rape.


Ahh-ha!  Found it: http://www.fark.com/comments/9331835/105317104

I see the confusion though: in that thread, I was wondering how statutory rape was different from "rape-rape" and arguing that it should not be viewed as being any different -- that the two should be viewed equivalently.  Since I do tend to use hypothetical situations as rhetorical devices, however, I can understand how your confusion arose ... though even in that thread, you should have known better; it was not exactly ambiguous:

mooseyfate: So. In your opinion: was what this youth pastor did acceptable or not?

jshine:Of course not!

/ anyway, if you're going to sling accusations, it's good practice to have at least some idea of why you're doing so
 
2017-04-21 12:57:13 PM  

fireclown: While we have our rape dander up, does anyone here work in the processing or rape kits?


No, but check this out.

http://www.endthebacklog.org/backlog/what-rape-kit-backlog
 
2017-04-21 12:59:10 PM  
Hostage situation at a lawyers' convention. Negotiator asks perp what he wants. "14 million, or I'll start letting them out."
 
2017-04-21 01:01:09 PM  

Theaetetus: No, it really didn't mean that.


You're going to go with #BelieveHer didn't mean that?

img.fark.net

Theaetetus: It meant that, as in every single other instance of an accusation of a crime, you presume that the complaining witness' testimony is credible until proven otherwise.


Oh my goodness, that's so, wrong. First, let's start with the legal:

Police: Police have a duty to investigate crimes, not #BelieveHer. In fact police automatically believing the alleged victim leads often enough to high profile embarrassments, such as Danmell Ndoye or her more modern counterpart Nikki Yovino. The cops shouldn't be jumping on the #BelieveHer bandwagon. The cops should be taking the statement(s), and any other evidence able to be given by the alleged victim, and running down the facts to give the prosecutor, not taking sides.

Trial: Credibility is a matter of both opinion and fact for the jury. A jury is allowed to believe, or disbelieve, any testimony given by a witness, in whole or in part. I understand you're only operating with a Fark GED in law, but that's a pretty glaring.

Then let's start with the societal / public implications. If, before legal proceedings have even started, you are publicly presuming the testimony of the alleged victim is truthful, then you are equally stating the denials by the accused are untruthful. Hence you are, through language, saying the alleged victim really is a victim / survivor (pick your parlance) and the accused really is guilty.

Tell me again how that isn't  how it works.

Theaetetus: That's it. It's simply asking for the same exact standard used in literally every other case.


If that's what you see as the standard in every case, we've turned Blackstone's formulation on it's head.
 
2017-04-21 01:11:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Why is it that the people who repeatedly insist that accused rapists are innocent until proven guilty always claim that rape accusers are guilty of perjury, defamation, false reporting, etc., etc., unless they can prove their innocence?


Because they are misogynists.
 
2017-04-21 01:18:36 PM  
Generally speaking, I defend criminal defense attorneys on the grounds that their job is very difficult.  They have to come up with the most absurd reasoning for some things.  And they have to do this so that when that reasoning is shot down, we all know that the defendant had a fair trial.  Their lawyer did their absolute best.

But I cannot defend someone saying that "Women are better liars", or "They do this because they are weaker".  That is not mounting a defense.  That is making an absurdly ignorant, sexist, unfounded claim, with no basis in reality.

I can just see the judge say, "Excuse me, did you really just say that?!"
 
2017-04-21 01:18:47 PM  

inglixthemad: Police: Police have a duty to investigate crimes, not #BelieveHer.


Why would the cops ever investigate a crime if they didn't believe any crime had occurred. By definition, the cops believe complaining witness testimony until it is proven non-credible, as I said.

Trial: Credibility is a matter of both opinion and fact for the jury. A jury is allowed to believe, or disbelieve, any testimony given by a witness, in whole or in part. I understand you're only operating with a Fark GED in law, but that's a pretty glaring.

And do you know when the jury disbelieves testimony? When it is proven to be non-credible, as I said.
You're really doing a terrible job at refuting my statement, considering your arguments all support it.

Then let's start with the societal / public implications. If, before legal proceedings have even started, you are publicly presuming the testimony of the alleged victim is truthful, then you are equally stating the denials by the accused are untruthful. Hence you are, through language, saying the alleged victim really is a victim / survivor (pick your parlance) and the accused really is guilty.

Tell me again how that isn't  how it works.


And, what you're doing is presuming that the complaining witness has committed multiple crimes, unless they prove their innocence. I guess you don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" if the subject is female, huh?
 
2017-04-21 01:21:07 PM  
Also:

inglixthemad: Theaetetus: No, it really didn't mean that.

You're going to go with #BelieveHer didn't mean that?


You've clearly established that you disagree with the concept of "believ[ing] her", but you haven't even attempted to refute my description of what the concept is. We get it, Inglix: you hate women. That doesn't mean that the people who don't hate women are all arguing for men to be castrated as soon as a woman raises an eyebrow. Your fears (and probably secret fetish) are simply untrue.
 
2017-04-21 01:23:07 PM  

Theaetetus: Why is it that the people who repeatedly insist that accused rapists are innocent until proven guilty


They are.

always claim that rape accusers are guilty of perjury, defamation, false reporting, etc., etc., unless they can prove their innocence?

They aren't. But that doesn't change the above.
 
2017-04-21 01:31:48 PM  

GreenSun: [iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/qVyujM8IVOI - 480x360]
Woman threatens Uber driver with rape and domestice abuse allegations


That was entertaining.  I wonder what the fall-out was.
 
2017-04-21 01:34:47 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Police: Police have a duty to investigate crimes, not #BelieveHer.

Why would the cops ever investigate a crime if they didn't believe any crime had occurred. By definition, the cops believe complaining witness testimony until it is proven non-credible, as I said.

Trial: Credibility is a matter of both opinion and fact for the jury. A jury is allowed to believe, or disbelieve, any testimony given by a witness, in whole or in part. I understand you're only operating with a Fark GED in law, but that's a pretty glaring.

And do you know when the jury disbelieves testimony? When it is proven to be non-credible, as I said.
You're really doing a terrible job at refuting my statement, considering your arguments all support it.

Then let's start with the societal / public implications. If, before legal proceedings have even started, you are publicly presuming the testimony of the alleged victim is truthful, then you are equally stating the denials by the accused are untruthful. Hence you are, through language, saying the alleged victim really is a victim / survivor (pick your parlance) and the accused really is guilty.

Tell me again how that isn't  how it works.

And, what you're doing is presuming that the complaining witness has committed multiple crimes, unless they prove their innocence. I guess you don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" if the subject is female, huh?


They have to investigate and determine if a crime has actually occurred. Investigate does not equate to #believeher. Until there's enough evidence to support an arrest for an alleged crime, nothing has happened, and no one is guilty until a conviction.
 
2017-04-21 01:34:57 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Police: Police have a duty to investigate crimes, not #BelieveHer.

Why would the cops ever investigate a crime if they didn't believe any crime had occurred. By definition, the cops believe complaining witness testimony until it is proven non-credible, as I said.


No, they have a duty to investigate it and determine if it is credible. That has no relation to whether they "believe" it or not.

Trial: Credibility is a matter of both opinion and fact for the jury. A jury is allowed to believe, or disbelieve, any testimony given by a witness, in whole or in part. I understand you're only operating with a Fark GED in law, but that's a pretty glaring.

Note, of course, that the judge has the ability to reject even a jury guilty decision if it is based on what to that judge feels is too little or too shaky evidence.

And do you know when the jury disbelieves testimony? When it is proven to be non-credible, as I said.
You're really doing a terrible job at refuting my statement, considering your arguments all support it.

Then let's start with the societal / public implications. If, before legal proceedings have even started, you are publicly presuming the testimony of the alleged victim is truthful, then you are equally stating the denials by the accused are untruthful. Hence you are, through language, saying the alleged victim really is a victim / survivor (pick your parlance) and the accused really is guilty.

Tell me again how that isn't  how it works.

And, what you're doing is presuming that the complaining witness has committed multiple crimes, unless they prove their innocence. I guess you don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" if the subject is female, huh?


And your arguments still boil down to "a person is guilty until they prove the accusations against them" horseshiat.

You aren't really very good at this.
 
2017-04-21 01:36:05 PM  
Dumbass.  That's not how you do it.

The correct way to case doubt on testimony is to show that this particular woman is a good liar.
 
2017-04-21 01:50:49 PM  

HumanSVD: They have to investigate and determine if a crime has actually occurred. Investigate does not equate to #believeher.

SwiftFox: No, they have a duty to investigate it and determine if it is credible. That has no relation to whether they "believe" it or not.


The concept has to do with the attitude with which the cops (and others) approach the investigation. Sexual assault is the one crime where, currently, the police act as if the complaining witness is lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth - frequently to the point of threatening the victim with arrest for filing a false report before any investigation has been performed.
That is not fulfilling their duty to investigate. It is disbelieving the victim unless they can meet some arbitrary bar.

SwiftFox: And your arguments still boil down to "a person is guilty until they prove the accusations against them" horseshiat.  You aren't really very good at this.


Notice how you claim this without actually quoting any of those arguments: it's because you can't, because I never said it. 
You aren't really very good at this.
 
2017-04-21 02:14:51 PM  
I'm going with the lawyer on this one.
 
2017-04-21 02:18:19 PM  

Theaetetus: HumanSVD: They have to investigate and determine if a crime has actually occurred. Investigate does not equate to #believeher.
SwiftFox: No, they have a duty to investigate it and determine if it is credible. That has no relation to whether they "believe" it or not.

The concept has to do with the attitude with which the cops (and others) approach the investigation. Sexual assault is the one crime where, currently, the police act as if the complaining witness is lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth - frequently to the point of threatening the victim with arrest for filing a false report before any investigation has been performed.
That is not fulfilling their duty to investigate. It is disbelieving the victim unless they can meet some arbitrary bar.

SwiftFox: And your arguments still boil down to "a person is guilty until they prove the accusations against them" horseshiat.  You aren't really very good at this.

Notice how you claim this without actually quoting any of those arguments: it's because you can't, because I never said it. 
You aren't really very good at this.


A man walks into a police station and says "Someone mugged me, and stole my money. I need to file a police report."

And so the police sit the man down in an interrogation room and, in an adversarial manner, begin questioning him.  Questions such as "So, your money was stolen?  Are you sure you didn't give your money away and change your mind?  How much had you had to drink?  What were you wearing?  The way you were walking, are you sure you weren't offering up your money?  Did you maybe want someone to take your money?  Are you sure?  What else might you have done to make someone think you wanted them to take your money?  Have you given away money in the past?  Did someone actually take your money?  Did you even have any money?  Did this happen at all?  Do you really want to keep wasting my time with this?  You do know it's a criminal offense to waste my time with false reports like this."

How often does the above happen?

Not often, when a man reports a robbery.  But when a woman reports a rape?  Quite often.

And no, it's not just "determining the credibility of the complainant".  Women who attempt to report rape to the police are often met with adversarial disbelief and hostility.

#BelieveHer isn't #BelieveHerUnquestioningly any more than #BlackLivesMatter is #BlackLivesMatterMore.  It's #BelieveHerInsteadOfStartingFromTheAssumptionSheIsLying
 
2017-04-21 02:19:11 PM  

Nurglitch: I'm going with the lawyer on this one.


To hell?
 
2017-04-21 02:19:20 PM  
I'm reminded of something I read about how the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are willing to suffer a few freeloaders so long as no-one is left behind, and conservatives are willing to leave some behind so long as there are no freeloaders.
 
2017-04-21 02:24:50 PM  

PlaidJaguar: Nurglitch: I'm going with the lawyer on this one.

To hell?


No, I'm just deferring to Theaetetus's expertise, although I'm given to understand it's not his practice.
 
2017-04-21 02:25:54 PM  

SwiftFox: Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Police: Police have a duty to investigate crimes, not #BelieveHer.

Why would the cops ever investigate a crime if they didn't believe any crime had occurred. By definition, the cops believe complaining witness testimony until it is proven non-credible, as I said.

No, they have a duty to investigate it and determine if it is credible. That has no relation to whether they "believe" it or not.

Trial: Credibility is a matter of both opinion and fact for the jury. A jury is allowed to believe, or disbelieve, any testimony given by a witness, in whole or in part. I understand you're only operating with a Fark GED in law, but that's a pretty glaring.

Note, of course, that the judge has the ability to reject even a jury guilty decision if it is based on what to that judge feels is too little or too shaky evidence.

And do you know when the jury disbelieves testimony? When it is proven to be non-credible, as I said.
You're really doing a terrible job at refuting my statement, considering your arguments all support it.

Then let's start with the societal / public implications. If, before legal proceedings have even started, you are publicly presuming the testimony of the alleged victim is truthful, then you are equally stating the denials by the accused are untruthful. Hence you are, through language, saying the alleged victim really is a victim / survivor (pick your parlance) and the accused really is guilty.

Tell me again how that isn't  how it works.

And, what you're doing is presuming that the complaining witness has committed multiple crimes, unless they prove their innocence. I guess you don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" if the subject is female, huh?

And your arguments still boil down to "a person is guilty until they prove the accusations against them" horseshiat.

You aren't really very good at this.


He's right. A defense lawyer has to show Reasonable Doubt regarding the accusations.
 
2017-04-21 02:26:37 PM  

Nurglitch: PlaidJaguar: Nurglitch: I'm going with the lawyer on this one.

To hell?

No, I'm just deferring to Theaetetus's expertise, although I'm given to understand it's not his practice.


Sorry, I thought you meant the lawyer in TFA, who I assume is going to hell - because even though I don't believe in it, he probably does.
 
2017-04-21 02:28:13 PM  

Theaetetus: HumanSVD: They have to investigate and determine if a crime has actually occurred. Investigate does not equate to #believeher.
SwiftFox: No, they have a duty to investigate it and determine if it is credible. That has no relation to whether they "believe" it or not.

The concept has to do with the attitude with which the cops (and others) approach the investigation. Sexual assault is the one crime where, currently, the police act as if the complaining witness is lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth - frequently to the point of threatening the victim with arrest for filing a false report before any investigation has been performed.
That is not fulfilling their duty to investigate. It is disbelieving the victim unless they can meet some arbitrary bar.

SwiftFox: And your arguments still boil down to "a person is guilty until they prove the accusations against them" horseshiat.  You aren't really very good at this.

Notice how you claim this without actually quoting any of those arguments: it's because you can't, because I never said it. 
You aren't really very good at this.


You have no clue of knowing the personal attitude of ALL police officers when they are investigating allegations of rape. None, zilch nada. It's irrelevant what they believe, they have to collect all evidence and investigate, even if that means being mean, lie, or do anything to shake the statement if there's nothing else that can solidly pinpoint evidence of rape (baring the person accused stupidly talks to the police without representation). Your entire tone is coming off that Police should believe the victim or else women will never come forward when they are victims.

And while it's sand and tragic and I wish that never happens to anyone, I still want the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt proof to be on the Police, not the person who's being accused. The alternative is worse, much worse.
 
2017-04-21 02:32:39 PM  

HumanSVD: Theaetetus: HumanSVD: They have to investigate and determine if a crime has actually occurred. Investigate does not equate to #believeher.
SwiftFox: No, they have a duty to investigate it and determine if it is credible. That has no relation to whether they "believe" it or not.

The concept has to do with the attitude with which the cops (and others) approach the investigation. Sexual assault is the one crime where, currently, the police act as if the complaining witness is lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth - frequently to the point of threatening the victim with arrest for filing a false report before any investigation has been performed.
That is not fulfilling their duty to investigate. It is disbelieving the victim unless they can meet some arbitrary bar.

SwiftFox: And your arguments still boil down to "a person is guilty until they prove the accusations against them" horseshiat.  You aren't really very good at this.

Notice how you claim this without actually quoting any of those arguments: it's because you can't, because I never said it. 
You aren't really very good at this.

You have no clue of knowing the personal attitude of ALL police officers when they are investigating allegations of rape. None, zilch nada. It's irrelevant what they believe, they have to collect all evidence and investigate, even if that means being mean, lie, or do anything to shake the statement if there's nothing else that can solidly pinpoint evidence of rape (baring the person accused stupidly talks to the police without representation). Your entire tone is coming off that Police should believe the victim or else women will never come forward when they are victims.

And while it's sand and tragic and I wish that never happens to anyone, I still want the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt proof to be on the Police, not the person who's being accused. The alternative is worse, much worse.


No, that burden is on the court. The police do not determine guilt or innocence.
 
2017-04-21 02:35:15 PM  
PlaidJaguar: #BelieveHerInsteadOfStartingFromTheAssumptionSheIsLying

No. That's not the job of the Police Officer to just automatically believe. It's his/her job to investigate. You are once again advocating that any allegation made by a person who is the victim of rape (especially women) should be believed, facts be damned.

There's so much emotion in this damn thread.
 
2017-04-21 02:39:23 PM  

HumanSVD: PlaidJaguar: #BelieveHerInsteadOfStartingFromTheAssumptionSheIsLying

No. That's not the job of the Police Officer to just automatically believe. It's his/her job to investigate. You are once again advocating that any allegation made by a person who is the victim of rape (especially women) should be believed, facts be damned.

There's so much emotion in this damn thread.


Why investigate if the officer does not believe the complainant?
 
2017-04-21 02:40:15 PM  

Nurglitch: PlaidJaguar: Nurglitch: I'm going with the lawyer on this one.

To hell?

No, I'm just deferring to Theaetetus's expertise, although I'm given to understand it's not his practice.


Thank you. It is my wife's practice.

The easiest example for this is where the complaining witness offers testimony about what happened, and the defense does nothing to refute it or poke holes in it on cross-examination or offer other testimony. In the absence of anything to rebut it, then clearly that testimony is going to be sufficient to establish guilt. Essentially, it's about meeting the requirements to establish a prima facie case of guilt... once that's done, then the burden shifts to the defense to rebut it.  But some here would say that, where sexual assault is involved, there never can be any burden on the defense.
 
2017-04-21 02:43:07 PM  

Theaetetus: Why would the cops ever investigate a crime if they didn't believe any crime had occurred. By definition, the cops believe complaining witness testimony until it is proven non-credible, as I said.


Because it's their job to investigate when someone files a complaint? What a shocking revelation. How in the pit of Hades are they even supposed to know if a complaint is true without investigating it?

Theaetetus: And do you know when the jury disbelieves testimony? When it is proven to be non-credible, as I said.
You're really doing a terrible job at refuting my statement, considering your arguments all support it.


A jury can disbelieve testimony for any reason, including prior high media profile f#ckups from people who chant #BelieveHer without verifying any facts. That's what you really can't wrap your head around, isn't it? You really don't understand that #BelieveHer is doing more damage because it is ultimately shading how the jury pool sees things.

Theaetetus: And, what you're doing is presuming that the complaining witness has committed multiple crimes, unless they prove their innocence. I guess you don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" if the subject is female, huh?


Actually what I'm saying is we need to be dispassionate about it. I realize this is hard for you to understand, but in creating #BelieveHer, you take that dispassionate view away. The fact you don't understand the power of language to ultimately cut both ways shows that lack of understanding. You keep saying, because I think someone is an "alleged victim", that I'm screaming out "Liar!" Nope. What I'm saying is no different than referring to someone who is accused of a crime as an "alleged perpetrator" Theaetetus. I'm not assigning guilt to the alleged victim. On the other hand you are automatically (through language) assigning the accused guilty status by saying you #BelieveHer.

Theaetetus: You've clearly established that you disagree with the concept of "believ[ing] her", but you haven't even attempted to refute my description of what the concept is. We get it, Inglix: you hate women. That doesn't mean that the people who don't hate women are all arguing for men to be castrated as soon as a woman raises an eyebrow. Your fears (and probably secret fetish) are simply untrue.


Let's take a look at the hashtags most commonly attached (again, when it's just an accusation) to #believeher:

#stopvictimblaming
#ibelievesurvivors
#rapeculture

Now the last one isn't directly accusatory, it ventures close, but let that slide for now. The other two, however, again automatically assign the status of truth to the accusation. Tell me again how #believeher isn't about blindly, obsequiously, assuming the alleged victim is telling the truth. If she is telling the truth, that means the accused must be a liar and guilty.
 
2017-04-21 02:44:14 PM  

HumanSVD: PlaidJaguar: #BelieveHerInsteadOfStartingFromTheAssumptionSheIsLying

No. That's not the job of the Police Officer to just automatically believe. It's his/her job to investigate. You are once again advocating that any allegation made by a person who is the victim of rape (especially women) should be believed, facts be damned.

There's so much emotion in this damn thread.


Yes, from you. You are the person who is pounding the table claiming we are saying "facts be damned," when no one except you has said that.
Rather, we've all said that you start by assuming that the person is telling the truth until evidence suggests otherwise. Not in spite of evidence suggesting otherwise, which is what you're claiming: until. Before you have that evidence, then you take the statement at face value.
 
2017-04-21 02:46:21 PM  
That's why these things are settled in court, Inglixthemad. You know, due process and rule of law and all that. The investigators don't get to determine the guilt of the accused or the validity of the accusation. Or at least they shouldn't.
 
2017-04-21 02:48:37 PM  

inglixthemad: What I'm saying is no different than referring to someone who is accused of a crime as an "alleged perpetrator" Theaetetus. I'm not assigning guilt to the alleged victim... If she is telling the truth, that means the accused must be a liar and guilty.


And if the accused is innocent, then that means she must be a liar and guilty. The difference is that, despite your claims of being dispassionate, you're assuming the latter to be true if the complainant happens to be female.
As noted above, you apparently don't believe that witness testimony can ever be sufficient evidence if the witness is a woman, and that the burden should never fall on the defense. Perhaps you've gotten our system confused for Sharia law?
 
2017-04-21 02:51:02 PM  
I think this case is on Fark because the defense lawyer, in the face of the evidence excluding reasonable doubt (at least from where I'm standing in the gallery), has fallen back on the fallacy of an appeal to prejudice.
 
2017-04-21 02:59:31 PM  

PlaidJaguar: Theaetetus: HumanSVD: They have to investigate and determine if a crime has actually occurred. Investigate does not equate to #believeher.
SwiftFox: No, they have a duty to investigate it and determine if it is credible. That has no relation to whether they "believe" it or not.

The concept has to do with the attitude with which the cops (and others) approach the investigation. Sexual assault is the one crime where, currently, the police act as if the complaining witness is lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth - frequently to the point of threatening the victim with arrest for filing a false report before any investigation has been performed.
That is not fulfilling their duty to investigate. It is disbelieving the victim unless they can meet some arbitrary bar.

SwiftFox: And your arguments still boil down to "a person is guilty until they prove the accusations against them" horseshiat.  You aren't really very good at this.

Notice how you claim this without actually quoting any of those arguments: it's because you can't, because I never said it. 
You aren't really very good at this.

A man walks into a police station and says "Someone mugged me, and stole my money. I need to file a police report."

And so the police sit the man down in an interrogation room and, in an adversarial manner, begin questioning him.  Questions such as "So, your money was stolen?  Are you sure you didn't give your money away and change your mind?  How much had you had to drink?  What were you wearing?  The way you were walking, are you sure you weren't offering up your money?  Did you maybe want someone to take your money?  Are you sure?  What else might you have done to make someone think you wanted them to take your money?  Have you given away money in the past?  Did someone actually take your money?  Did you even have any money?  Did this happen at all?  Do you really want to keep wasting my time with this?  You do know it's a criminal offense to waste my time with fal ...


You're (And Thea) are moving the goalposts from the trial back to the police investigation. When in an actual trial would the defense lawyer get to ask those questions if they wanted to, seemed plausable, made sense for the specifics of the case?  Every goddamn time.
 
2017-04-21 03:01:22 PM  

Theaetetus: And if the accused is innocent, then that means she must be a liar and guilty. The difference is that, despite your claims of being dispassionate, you're assuming the latter to be true if the complainant happens to be female.


Let's check this out:

inglixthemad: You keep saying, because I think someone is an "alleged victim", that I'm screaming out "Liar!" Nope. What I'm saying is no different than referring to someone who is accused of a crime as an "alleged perpetrator" Theaetetus. I'm not assigning guilt to the alleged victim. On the other hand you are automatically (through language) assigning the accused guilty status by saying you #BelieveHer.


Seems you're wrong about what I said.

Theaetetus: As noted above, you apparently don't believe that witness testimony can ever be sufficient evidence if the witness is a woman, and that the burden should never fall on the defense. Perhaps you've gotten our system confused for Sharia law?


Where did I say that? I'll give you a chance to quote what you think states that, just in case.
 
2017-04-21 03:03:11 PM  
Is the fact that some women have made false accusations sufficient for reasonable doubt to be established by the defense in this trial?
 
2017-04-21 03:12:19 PM  

Nurglitch: Is the fact that some women have made false accusations sufficient for reasonable doubt to be established by the defense in this trial?


Depends.  is there any other evidence?  The point is that a mere accusation does not mean there actually was a victim nor counter the doctrine of beyond a reasonable doubt.  Other evidence is not questioned by the claim of the lawyer..
 
2017-04-21 03:15:08 PM  
I imagine just as many men have killed someone as women who lied about rape.

Is "men have killed people" a valid prosecution argument in a murder case?
 
2017-04-21 03:15:58 PM  

Nurglitch: That's why these things are settled in court, Inglixthemad. You know, due process and rule of law and all that. The investigators don't get to determine the guilt of the accused or the validity of the accusation. Or at least they shouldn't.


The problem is that people like Theaetetus want to assign guilt before the trial starts, even if they don't realize it. They don't understand how damaging that is, especially when shiat flies back because someone happens to be an idiot liar.

In the end, being dispassionate will yield better results than all of the chanting of #BelieveHer ever could. When you are dispassionate, you aren't creating a circus where people become disillusioned because of a case where some claimant turned out to be a liar.
 
2017-04-21 03:18:43 PM  

fireclown: While we have our rape dander up, does anyone here work in the processing or rape kits?


Why?  You need one tampered with?
 
2017-04-21 03:19:02 PM  

SwiftFox: Nurglitch: Is the fact that some women have made false accusations sufficient for reasonable doubt to be established by the defense in this trial?

Depends.  is there any other evidence?  The point is that a mere accusation does not mean there actually was a victim nor counter the doctrine of beyond a reasonable doubt.  Other evidence is not questioned by the claim of the lawyer..


It's deeper than that even. Lawyers make desperate arguments like this because they have nothing else. There's a chance, even lacking anything to prove it, that this lawyer can indirectly call her a liar. He can do that and hope someone remembers "Jackie", or some other spectacular mess, and then holds out because of disillusionment.

Juries are ultimately human, with all of the baggage.
 
2017-04-21 03:21:22 PM  

SwiftFox: You're (And Thea) are moving the goalposts from the trial back to the police investigation.


Well, yeah. That's what the whole "believe her" thing is about: the early stages of investigation. At trial, the defense has their opportunity to rebut the accusation with evidence, testimony, cross-examination, etc. No one is arguing that the defense should never get that opportunity - this is purely about the police giving victims of sexual assault the same presumption of credibility that is given to victims of other crimes.
 
2017-04-21 03:30:28 PM  

SwiftFox: Nurglitch: Is the fact that some women have made false accusations sufficient for reasonable doubt to be established by the defense in this trial?

Depends.  is there any other evidence?  The point is that a mere accusation does not mean there actually was a victim nor counter the doctrine of beyond a reasonable doubt.  Other evidence is not questioned by the claim of the lawyer..


When do you think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is reached? Let's get away from sexual assault for a second... Assume instead, that you accuse me of robbing you. You get on the stand and testify as follows:
"Theaetetus approached me on Main Street last Wednesday evening at just after 11 pm. He pulled up his shirt and showed me a gun. It appeared to be a revolver of some kind. He said 'give me all the money in your wallet.' I handed over the cash, which was five $20 bills, and he ran around the corner. I didn't follow him because I was scared. I know it was him, because I had met him before, and I recognized him."
The prosecutor sits down, and my lawyer stands up and says, "no questions, yer honor."
You get dismissed, and the prosecutor says 'that's it', and it's now the defense's turn. And my lawyer stands up and says, "nothing to add, yer honor."

There's no gun introduced into evidence, no pile of cash in a bag labeled "exhibit A", no corroborating witnesses. Just your 100% undisputed testimony. Do you think the jury can convict me?
 
2017-04-21 03:33:39 PM  

Theaetetus: SwiftFox: You're (And Thea) are moving the goalposts from the trial back to the police investigation.

Well, yeah. That's what the whole "believe her" thing is about: the early stages of investigation. At trial, the defense has their opportunity to rebut the accusation with evidence, testimony, cross-examination, etc. No one is arguing that the defense should never get that opportunity - this is purely about the police giving victims of sexual assault the same presumption of credibility that is given to victims of other crimes.


Sure, and that seems perfectly reasonable.  It's one thing to take a neutral tone, gather a proper statement, collect whatever evidence exists, and pass along the facts to the DA for his/her decision of how to proceed.  ...and my GED in law (and Wikipedia) says that an arrest only requires "probable cause," which isn't necessarily even 50/50.

That's a long way from a criminal conviction with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and I can certainly understand where an uncorroborated accusation might be sufficient for "probable cause" without being sufficient for "beyond a reasonable doubt."
 
2017-04-21 03:39:56 PM  

Nurglitch: HumanSVD: PlaidJaguar: #BelieveHerInsteadOfStartingFromTheAssumptionSheIsLying

No. That's not the job of the Police Officer to just automatically believe. It's his/her job to investigate. You are once again advocating that any allegation made by a person who is the victim of rape (especially women) should be believed, facts be damned.

There's so much emotion in this damn thread.

Why investigate if the officer does not believe the complainant?


The officer has to investigate regardless, and does whether he or she believes or not irrelevant.
 
2017-04-21 03:40:34 PM  

Theaetetus: SwiftFox: Nurglitch: Is the fact that some women have made false accusations sufficient for reasonable doubt to be established by the defense in this trial?

Depends.  is there any other evidence?  The point is that a mere accusation does not mean there actually was a victim nor counter the doctrine of beyond a reasonable doubt.  Other evidence is not questioned by the claim of the lawyer..

When do you think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is reached? Let's get away from sexual assault for a second... Assume instead, that you accuse me of robbing you. You get on the stand and testify as follows:
"Theaetetus approached me on Main Street last Wednesday evening at just after 11 pm. He pulled up his shirt and showed me a gun. It appeared to be a revolver of some kind. He said 'give me all the money in your wallet.' I handed over the cash, which was five $20 bills, and he ran around the corner. I didn't follow him because I was scared. I know it was him, because I had met him before, and I recognized him."
The prosecutor sits down, and my lawyer stands up and says, "no questions, yer honor."
You get dismissed, and the prosecutor says 'that's it', and it's now the defense's turn. And my lawyer stands up and says, "nothing to add, yer honor."

There's no gun introduced into evidence, no pile of cash in a bag labeled "exhibit A", no corroborating witnesses. Just your 100% undisputed testimony. Do you think the jury can convict me?


Again, my GED in law says they probably can convict, if they truly believed the accusation.  Isn't it up to the jury to decide whether or not they have any reasonable doubt in their minds?  Personally, I think some form of corroboration should be required since it seems dangerous to allow felony convictions based on one person's word alone -- counter to the "better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer" maxim.
 
2017-04-21 03:41:43 PM  

jshine: Theaetetus: SwiftFox: You're (And Thea) are moving the goalposts from the trial back to the police investigation.

Well, yeah. That's what the whole "believe her" thing is about: the early stages of investigation. At trial, the defense has their opportunity to rebut the accusation with evidence, testimony, cross-examination, etc. No one is arguing that the defense should never get that opportunity - this is purely about the police giving victims of sexual assault the same presumption of credibility that is given to victims of other crimes.

Sure, and that seems perfectly reasonable.  It's one thing to take a neutral tone, gather a proper statement, collect whatever evidence exists, and pass along the facts to the DA for his/her decision of how to proceed.  ...and my GED in law (and Wikipedia) says that an arrest only requires "probable cause," which isn't necessarily even 50/50.


That's all that it was ever about. Like, if you go to the police and report your car being stolen, they ask about the make and model, where you left it, who might have had access to it, etc. They don't say, "are you sure you didn't let someone borrow it? You've let people borrow your car before, haven't you? Do you really want some guy's life ruined, just because you let them borrow the car but now have regrets?"
Those questions might come up later, when they find some guy with the car who says, "I borrowed it yesterday, he said I could." But they don't come up initially -instead, the victim is believed until some evidence suggests otherwise.
 
2017-04-21 03:51:34 PM  

Theaetetus: HumanSVD: PlaidJaguar: #BelieveHerInsteadOfStartingFromTheAssumptionSheIsLying

No. That's not the job of the Police Officer to just automatically believe. It's his/her job to investigate. You are once again advocating that any allegation made by a person who is the victim of rape (especially women) should be believed, facts be damned.

There's so much emotion in this damn thread.

Yes, from you. You are the person who is pounding the table claiming we are saying "facts be damned," when no one except you has said that.
Rather, we've all said that you start by assuming that the person is telling the truth until evidence suggests otherwise. Not in spite of evidence suggesting otherwise, which is what you're claiming: until. Before you have that evidence, then you take the statement at face value.


Face value? That it must be true? No, that's not how it works and is not the job of the police. They have to investigate, including the details of the accusation. This is often taken not believing the victim, rather than gathering facts.

It's dangerous for people to just assume the person is telling the truth, because society often treats the accused as automatically guilty. You can't have that,  especially in the profession of Police. Any thread where's there's talk of police misconduct is sufficient enough to warrant this.
 
2017-04-21 03:51:58 PM  

HumanSVD: PlaidJaguar: #BelieveHerInsteadOfStartingFromTheAssumptionSheIsLying

No. That's not the job of the Police Officer to just automatically believe. It's his/her job to investigate. You are once again advocating that any allegation made by a person who is the victim of rape (especially women) should be believed, facts be damned.

There's so much emotion in this damn thread.


The only person saying "facts be damned" is you.  You are demanding that police begin any investigation with the assumption the claimant is lying, and then you lie and claim people who disagree with you are calling for the claimant to be believed in the face of contradictory evidence.  Which, to be clear, we are not.

I am only calling for police to not begin the investigation from the perspective of "claimant is lying" prior to obtaining any evidence.

You said "No, it's the police's job to investigate" which is funny, because I was also calling for them to investigate - I just don't want the investigation to start from the position of "Claimant is lying" whereas you do want that.

For clarification- is it only rape victims you believe should be assumed to be lying without evidence, or do you apply the same standard to all crimes?
 
2017-04-21 03:52:05 PM  

jshine: Again, my GED in law says they probably can convict, if they truly believed the accusation.  Isn't it up to the jury to decide whether or not they have any reasonable doubt in their minds?


Yep, based on the evidence before them. If the only evidence points to guilt, then they shouldn't be bringing in outside evidence - like a statement in the Bible that women lie.

Personally, I think some form of corroboration should be required since it seems dangerous to allow felony convictions based on one person's word alone -- counter to the "better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer" maxim.

It's not going to be based on one person's word alone, but the failure to the defense to offer anything to rebut that person's word. Take the same hypothetical I offered above, but this time, my lawyer stands up and says, "Mr. SwiftFox, isn't it true you were out of town last Wednesday, and only got back Thursday morning? You couldn't have been on Main Street on Wednesday at 11 PM. And you say that my client ran around the corner... but did you know that he broke his foot a week earlier and can't run? Now, maybe you were robbed, but you're confused about the day or the time or the person involved... Isn't that more likely?"
And if in response to that, SwiftFox and the prosecutor go  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, then the jury would certainly have reasonable doubts.

Or heck, even without that, I get up on the stand and say, "none of that happened. I was home Wednesday at 11 pm, watching the new Rick and Morty episode. I don't own a gun, and I was nowhere near Main Street. I haven't seen SwiftFox for months."
That would still be enough to provide reasonable doubt, given the fact that there's no other evidence either way.

There's no need to require explicit corroboration, because the defense gets the opportunity to respond to accusations. If you did require explicit corroboration, then essentially, you're telling anyone who wants to commit a crime to leave no witnesses.
 
2017-04-21 03:52:49 PM  

inglixthemad: SwiftFox: Nurglitch: Is the fact that some women have made false accusations sufficient for reasonable doubt to be established by the defense in this trial?

Depends.  is there any other evidence?  The point is that a mere accusation does not mean there actually was a victim nor counter the doctrine of beyond a reasonable doubt.  Other evidence is not questioned by the claim of the lawyer..

It's deeper than that even. Lawyers make desperate arguments like this because they have nothing else. There's a chance, even lacking anything to prove it, that this lawyer can indirectly call her a liar. He can do that and hope someone remembers "Jackie", or some other spectacular mess, and then holds out because of disillusionment.

Juries are ultimately human, with all of the baggage.


When you come down to it, a realistic view of the possibility of anyone lying is, or at least should be, one of the basic qualifications for being a juror.
 
2017-04-21 03:55:54 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: What I'm saying is no different than referring to someone who is accused of a crime as an "alleged perpetrator" Theaetetus. I'm not assigning guilt to the alleged victim... If she is telling the truth, that means the accused must be a liar and guilty.

And if the accused is innocent, then that means she must be a liar and guilty. The difference is that, despite your claims of being dispassionate, you're assuming the latter to be true if the complainant happens to be female.
As noted above, you apparently don't believe that witness testimony can ever be sufficient evidence if the witness is a woman, and that the burden should never fall on the defense. Perhaps you've gotten our system confused for Sharia law?


He hasn't, this is secular law and innocent until proven guilty is still a thing. Excellent false comparison, not even close comparison though. Reeks of only women can be victims instead of everyone. Otherwise you'd be promoting

#believethem
 
2017-04-21 03:57:58 PM  

Theaetetus: If you did require explicit corroboration, then essentially, you're telling anyone who wants to commit a crime to leave no witnesses.


...or, at least, no leave no evidence (of which witnesses would only be one form).

Even without this, however, a suitably-sociopathic criminal would (and probably does) still realize that witnesses are a liability.
 
2017-04-21 03:58:07 PM  

Nurglitch: Is the fact that some women have made false accusations sufficient for reasonable doubt to be established by the defense in this trial?


It's sufficient that her word alone, minus the other evidence, is not enough.
 
2017-04-21 04:00:04 PM  

Theaetetus: Or heck, even without that, I get up on the stand and say, "none of that happened. I was home Wednesday at 11 pm, watching the new Rick and Morty episode. I don't own a gun, and I was nowhere near Main Street. I haven't seen SwiftFox for months."
That would still be enough to provide reasonable doubt, given the fact that there's no other evidence either way.

There's no need to require explicit corroboration, because the defense gets the opportunity to respond to accusations.


This makes sense.
 
2017-04-21 04:01:12 PM  
HumanSVD:  her word alone... is not enough.

At least you're honest about your prejudice.
 
2017-04-21 04:02:39 PM  

HumanSVD: Otherwise you'd be promoting

#believethem


I am. See both my car theft and robbery hypotheticals above. You're the one making the sexist statements like "her word alone... is not enough".
 
2017-04-21 04:08:13 PM  

Tanqueray: Clubb said this is an example of attitudes that she's trying to change: "What we wear, where we are, whether we are drunk, is not the reason for rape. Rape happens because men rape ... And it's wrong. It's a crime."

So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."


Yup,  that is the type of person who becomes outraged by this, everyone else knows he is right.  It has been shown over and over again that women lie more than men.
Hell, the few studies that ever looked into the rates at which women lie about rape consistently showed that over 50% of rape accusations are false.  This isn't talking about ones that could not be proven, it only counts as false cases where the accuser admitted that she was lying.  The actual percentage is likely much higher.
 
2017-04-21 04:09:21 PM  

Theaetetus: jshine: Again, my GED in law says they probably can convict, if they truly believed the accusation.  Isn't it up to the jury to decide whether or not they have any reasonable doubt in their minds?

Yep, based on the evidence before them. If the only evidence points to guilt, then they shouldn't be bringing in outside evidence - like a statement in the Bible that women lie.

Personally, I think some form of corroboration should be required since it seems dangerous to allow felony convictions based on one person's word alone -- counter to the "better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer" maxim.

It's not going to be based on one person's word alone, but the failure to the defense to offer anything to rebut that person's word. Take the same hypothetical I offered above, but this time, my lawyer stands up and says, "Mr. SwiftFox, isn't it true you were out of town last Wednesday, and only got back Thursday morning? You couldn't have been on Main Street on Wednesday at 11 PM. And you say that my client ran around the corner... but did you know that he broke his foot a week earlier and can't run? Now, maybe you were robbed, but you're confused about the day or the time or the person involved... Isn't that more likely?"
And if in response to that, SwiftFox and the prosecutor go  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, then the jury would certainly have reasonable doubts.

Or heck, even without that, I get up on the stand and say, "none of that happened. I was home Wednesday at 11 pm, watching the new Rick and Morty episode. I don't own a gun, and I was nowhere near Main Street. I haven't seen SwiftFox for months."
That would still be enough to provide reasonable doubt, given the fact that there's no other evidence either way.

There's no need to require explicit corroboration, because the defense gets the opportunity to respond to accusations. If you did require explicit corroboration, then essentially, you're telling anyone who wants to commit a crime to leave no witnes ...


So, gathered together with your other posts, what you are saying is that the prosecution shouldn't be able to introduce evidence that I was familiar with shooting people before (legally, say as a military person), that I was prolific and expert with my legal target and hunting gun use, that I had had to be treated medically because of two gunshot wounds in my leg, etc.  Things that unfairly imply.  Got it
 
2017-04-21 04:15:44 PM  

orbister: Tanqueray: So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."

Women and men lie. Only men rape (in many jurisdictions).


Only because the definition of rape in those jurisdictions precludes the possibility of it by defining the perpetrator as only being male.  This is where we get stats that say that only men rape, because all the cases of women raping people are not classified as rape.  In reality women rape as often, if not more often, than men.  And that is just the reported cases.
 
2017-04-21 04:19:59 PM  

chadwick1982: orbister: Tanqueray: So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."

Women and men lie. Only men rape (in many jurisdictions).

Only because the definition of rape in those jurisdictions precludes the possibility of it by defining the perpetrator as only being male.  This is where we get stats that say that only men rape, because all the cases of women raping people are not classified as rape.  In reality women rape as often, if not more often, than men.  And that is just the reported cases.


Oh, now that's weak.
 
2017-04-21 04:20:44 PM  

SwiftFox: So, gathered together with your other posts, what you are saying is that the prosecution shouldn't be able to introduce evidence that I was familiar with shooting people before (legally, say as a military person), that I was prolific and expert with my legal target and hunting gun use, that I had had to be treated medically because of two gunshot wounds in my leg, etc.


Nope, 100% backwards. What I'm saying is "the prosecution shouldn't be able to introduce evidence that men generally are familiar with shooting people before (legally, say as a military person), that men generally areprolific and expert with their legal target and hunting gun use, that men have previously been treated medically because of two gunshot wounds in their legs, etc."

Remember where I started? Let me remind you: 
Specifically, [the prosecutor] can absolutely bring up evidence of the accuser's lack of credibility, such as whether she has any past convictions for fraud. He can't claim "all women lie, like the slutty lying liars who doomed us all by farking a snake and stealing an apple," because that's not about her credibility.
Got it this time?
 
2017-04-21 04:25:56 PM  

SwiftFox: chadwick1982: orbister: Tanqueray: So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."

Women and men lie. Only men rape (in many jurisdictions).

Only because the definition of rape in those jurisdictions precludes the possibility of it by defining the perpetrator as only being male.  This is where we get stats that say that only men rape, because all the cases of women raping people are not classified as rape.  In reality women rape as often, if not more often, than men.  And that is just the reported cases.

Oh, now that's weak.


Are you serious?
The FBI's definition of rape was very specifically a man penetrating a woman until the mid 2000's.  Until then all incidences of women raping were classified as sexual assault instead of rape.
Are you ignorant of this, or are you just an asshole?
 
2017-04-21 04:33:50 PM  

Theaetetus: That's all that it was ever about. Like, if you go to the police and report your car being stolen, they ask about the make and model, where you left it, who might have had access to it, etc. They don't say, "are you sure you didn't let someone borrow it? You've let people borrow your car before, haven't you? Do you really want some guy's life ruined, just because you let them borrow the car but now have regrets?"


Not really. If I go and say "alleged victim" you're all up accusing me of calling the person a liar. Why? You claim you can assign the complainant's statements the status of truth and not be coloring your perception of the accused. That's some weapons grade cognitive dissonance.

Theaetetus: And, what you're doing is presuming that the complaining witness has committed multiple crimes, unless they prove their innocence. I guess you don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" if the subject is female, huh?


However, let's take a look at how the real world works. In cases of forcible stranger rape, the cops aren't likely to ask you if you were sure. I mean, knife, dark alley, they're going to jump to their own conclusion it wasn't consensual. On the other hand if the people know each other, especially if they've engaged in sexual relations before, they are going to ask. They are also going to ask a whole bunch of other questions you might find objectionable, like if alcohol was involved. Their job is to gather the facts to hand over to the prosecutor. Many won't go out of their way to hurt the alleged victim, but the alleged victim has to tell the whole story. You can chant #BelieveHer all you want to, it isn't your job to ferret out details. I'm not claiming it's pleasant, but if they don't get all of the details they can something might come back and bite the prosecutor in the a$$ at trial, resulting in a not guilty.

Theaetetus: Those questions might come up later, when they find some guy with the car who says, "I borrowed it yesterday, he said I could." But they don't come up initially -instead, the victim is believed until some evidence suggests otherwise.


Which is what's going to happen after they pull out every possible detail from the alleged victim. They're going to go to the person the victim accuses, and start raking the alleged perpetrator over the coals. If you think their questions to alleged victim are insensitive, the police are not very kind to alleged perpetrators either. The standard police tactics apply, like lying to them to get them to confess, preferably after luring them into the station without a lawyer. Getting them to go over the event multiple times, trying to trip them up with slight inconsistencies, standard police stuff. Again, it's them attacking the details to try and work it out before they hand it over to the prosecutor.

#BelieveHer isn't about investigation, as the joy over the frat being vandalized, calls for expulsion without any real evidence, et al., show. #BelieveHer is all about assigning someone the status of victim without a trial, declaring the accused guilty, and if mob justice happens (as it does from time to time) it's all good. Those ebil rapists Phi Kappa Psi (and others) deserve whatever they get. Unfortunately if something blows up spectacularly, it gives any future claimant one more obstacle to climb to probe their case.
 
2017-04-21 04:34:16 PM  
img.fark.net


NTTHATDWT
 
2017-04-21 04:49:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: dragonchild: Farking Clown Shoes: Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Not necessarily.  I know juries are about the furthest thing from randomly selected, but supposing this one was (for lack of better information), as many as five of those women could completely buy into this defense and far from being bizarre, it'd be expected.  Heck, 42% of women voted for a JFP who publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women.
[ichef.bbci.co.uk image 624x258]
That's nationwide.  This trial is in Tennessee.  Those ain't Women's Studies majors from UC-Berkeley packed in the box.

This isn't to disparage the accuser or back up the "women are liars" statement, but just to point out that women are NOT the unified supportive monolithic group they're portrayed as, so neither side is playing a particularly dumb numbers game.  Packing the jury with women is far from a sure bet for the prosecution, to the point that the defense was probably unfazed by it.  The defense has good reasons to be unconcerned with saying "women are liars" to a group of them.

Women seldom lie about rape.


About that...
Important parts:

The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations.  Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape.  That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false.  In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations.  To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation.  Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.
The McDowell report has itself generated controversy even though, when rape is a frequent media topic, it is not widely known.  Its calculations are no doubt problematic enough to raise serious questions.  If, out of 556 rape allegations, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape, then a large number, 46%, entered a gray area within which more than a few, if not all, of the accusations could have been authentic.  If so, the 27% false allegation figure obtained from the remaining 300 cases could be badly skewed.  Moreover, the study itself focused on a possibly non-representative population of military personnel.
The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies.  They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation.  If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description.  The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false.  McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city.  He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329).
McDowell's data have received qualified confirmation from other investigators.  A survey of seven Washington, D.C. area jurisdictions in the 1991/2 period, for example, revealed that an average of 24% of rape charges were unfounded (Buckley, 1992).  A recently completed study of a small midwestern city was reported by Eugene J. Kanin (1994) of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Purdue University.  Kanin concluded that "false rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases reported during this period" (p.81).
 
2017-04-21 04:51:02 PM  

chadwick1982: SwiftFox: chadwick1982: orbister: Tanqueray: So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."

Women and men lie. Only men rape (in many jurisdictions).

Only because the definition of rape in those jurisdictions precludes the possibility of it by defining the perpetrator as only being male.  This is where we get stats that say that only men rape, because all the cases of women raping people are not classified as rape.  In reality women rape as often, if not more often, than men.  And that is just the reported cases.

Oh, now that's weak.

Are you serious?
The FBI's definition of rape was very specifically a man penetrating a woman until the mid 2000's.  Until then all incidences of women raping were classified as sexual assault instead of rape.
Are you ignorant of this, or are you just an asshole?


Do you have a citation for the absurd "women rape as often, if not more often, than men" claim, or are you just being an asshole?
 
2017-04-21 04:55:09 PM  

inglixthemad: Theaetetus: That's all that it was ever about. Like, if you go to the police and report your car being stolen, they ask about the make and model, where you left it, who might have had access to it, etc. They don't say, "are you sure you didn't let someone borrow it? You've let people borrow your car before, haven't you? Do you really want some guy's life ruined, just because you let them borrow the car but now have regrets?"

Not really. If I go and say "alleged victim" you're all up accusing me of calling the person a liar.


Nope. I never once objected to you using that term.

However, let's take a look at how the real world works. In cases of forcible stranger rape, the cops aren't likely to ask you if you were sure. I mean, knife, dark alley, they're going to jump to their own conclusion it wasn't consensual. On the other hand if the people know each other, especially if they've engaged in sexual relations before, they are going to ask.

And yet, the vast majority of rapes are not "knife, dark alley". In fact, that's so true that "knife, dark alley" is actually one of the things the FBI looks for as a potential indicator of a false accusation.
Understand that, Inglix? Your understanding of reality is 100% backwards.

Many won't go out of their way to hurt the alleged victim

And many will. That's what people are objecting to.

Theaetetus: Those questions might come up later, when they find some guy with the car who says, "I borrowed it yesterday, he said I could." But they don't come up initially -instead, the victim is believed until some evidence suggests otherwise.

Which is what's going to happen after they pull out every possible detail from the alleged victim.


In other words, you're saying those questions should come up initially, rather than later: i.e. the victim should not be believed, and the cops should be initially investigating the crime of filing a false report. That's what people disagree with.
 
2017-04-21 04:56:54 PM  

inglixthemad: #BelieveHer isn't about investigation, as the joy over the frat being vandalized, calls for expulsion without any real evidence, et al., show.


... he says, linking to an article in which the word "believe" doesn't even appear once.

img.fark.net
 
2017-04-21 05:00:12 PM  

chadwick1982: A recently completed study of a small midwestern city was reported by Eugene J. Kanin (1994) of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Purdue University.  Kanin concluded that "false rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases reported during this period" (p.81).


"Kanin's 1994 article on false allegations is a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations."
 
2017-04-21 05:23:19 PM  

Theaetetus: Nope. I never once objected to you using that term.


Wait for it:

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: What I'm saying is no different than referring to someone who is accused of a crime as an "alleged perpetrator" Theaetetus. I'm not assigning guilt to the alleged victim... If she is telling the truth, that means the accused must be a liar and guilty.

And if the accused is innocent, then that means she must be a liar and guilty. The difference is that, despite your claims of being dispassionate, you're assuming the latter to be true if the complainant happens to be female.
As noted above, you apparently don't believe that witness testimony can ever be sufficient evidence if the witness is a woman, and that the burden should never fall on the defense. Perhaps you've gotten our system confused for Sharia law?


Seems like you are saying that Theaetetus.

Theaetetus: And yet, the vast majority of rapes are not "knife, dark alley". In fact, that's so true that "knife, dark alley" is actually one of the things the FBI looks for as a potential indicator of a false accusation.
Understand that, Inglix? Your understanding of reality is 100% backwards.


No, I was simply stating the difference between the two. The rage blocking your brain function notwithstanding, when it comes to an alleged rape where the person knows the victim, especially if they engaged in sexual relations prior, they are going to ask unpleasant questions. The old adage, "The devil's in the details." applies here. I know it's unpleasant, but they have to ferret out the details so there's as little chance as possible of something blowing up in the prosecutor's case. Of course since you, by default, #BelieveHer you don't worry about pesky details that might show guilt... or innocence.

Theaetetus: And many will. That's what people are objecting to.


In cases where the victim knows the attacker, see above. They have to be dispassionate (in the professional sense) and ask questions that are going to hurt. There is no way around this for police if they are going to gather the facts (evidence). I'm not claiming it's pleasant, heck it can't be because rape is one of the most horrible crimes against bodily autonomy (regardless of the victim) that can be committed. They are going to be asking questions where the alleged victim will be reliving the event. That being said, standing around and chanting #BelieveHer isn't going to result in justice. If anything it just sets a false standard for both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator. For the alleged victim the initial road may appear easier, but for every spectacular f#ckup, that pile of obstacles coloring juries gets a little higher. For the alleged perpetrator, all #BelieveHer ultimately does is make it guilty until proven innocent, with the fear of mob justice.

Theaetetus: In other words, you're saying those questions should come up initially, rather than later: i.e. the victim should not be believed, and the cops should be initially investigating the crime of filing a false report. That's what people disagree with.


Here you go off the rails again. Just because the cops have to ask the hard questions, to ferret out every possible little detail they can, doesn't mean they are judging the complainant a liar. The complainant is an alleged victim, and not trying to get at the details right off the bat can lead to more pain. As soon as they tip their hand to the alleged perpetrator, the possibility exists that they will be able to begin covering up their role if they are guilty.

And, as an aside, which is worse? The pain up front, should the alleged victim be telling the truth, with a higher probability of a plea or conviction? Or, skipping that, and (still assuming the alleged victim is telling the truth) having details come up later that torpedo the case and the perpetrator go free?

Works for the defense too: Which is worse? The pain up front, should the alleged perpetrator be telling the truth, where they are able to establish innocence through details of your own? Or, skipping that, and (still assuming the alleged perpetrator is innocent) having those details come up later after your name is forever tied to an alleged rape you didn't commit?
 
2017-04-21 05:25:00 PM  

inglixthemad: Theaetetus: Nope. I never once objected to you using that term.

Wait for it:


Theaetetus: inglixthemad: What I'm saying is no different than referring to someone who is accused of a crime as an "alleged perpetrator" Theaetetus. I'm not assigning guilt to the alleged victim... If she is telling the truth, that means the accused must be a liar and guilty.

And if the accused is innocent, then that means she must be a liar and guilty. The difference is that, despite your claims of being dispassionate, you're assuming the latter to be true if the complainant happens to be female.
As noted above, you apparently don't believe that witness testimony can ever be sufficient evidence if the witness is a woman, and that the burden should never fall on the defense. Perhaps you've gotten our system confused for Sharia law?

Seems like you are saying that Theaetetus.


Still waiting.
 
2017-04-21 05:32:11 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-04-21 05:35:56 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: What I'm saying is no different than referring to someone who is accused of a crime as an "alleged perpetrator" Theaetetus. I'm not assigning guilt to the alleged victim... If she is telling the truth, that means the accused must be a liar and guilty.

And if the accused is innocent, then that means she must be a liar and guilty. The difference is that, despite your claims of being dispassionate, you're assuming the latter to be true if the complainant happens to be female.
As noted above, you apparently don't believe that witness testimony can ever be sufficient evidence if the witness is a woman, and that the burden should never fall on the defense. Perhaps you've gotten our system confused for Sharia law?


She could be telling the truth about the rape but mistaken about the identity of the rapist...Not in this case per se, but in hypothetical other cases.
 
2017-04-21 05:39:48 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: #BelieveHer isn't about investigation, as the joy over the frat being vandalized, calls for expulsion without any real evidence, et al., show.

... he says, linking to an article in which the word "believe" doesn't even appear once.

[img.fark.net image 494x230]


All these protesters at UVA just knew Phi Kappa Psi was guilty, right? I mean, Justice for Jackie would imply they #BelieveHer

img.fark.net

They didn't #BelieveHer at all, right? They just want to call them criminals and ban Greek life for some other gang rape at roughly the same time.

img.fark.net

I mean, they seem pretty sure that Phi Kappa Psi is guilty of rape. I mean, the whole "Stop Rape Phi Kappa Psi Start Empathy" seems to show they #BelieveHer.

img.fark.net

I'm sure none of these people chose to #BelieveHer either.

img.fark.net

You were saying...

Oh well:

img.fark.net
 
2017-04-21 05:41:02 PM  

chadwick1982: Tanqueray: Clubb said this is an example of attitudes that she's trying to change: "What we wear, where we are, whether we are drunk, is not the reason for rape. Rape happens because men rape ... And it's wrong. It's a crime."

So she's upset by the lawyer saying "women lie" but then throws out "men rape."

Yup,  that is the type of person who becomes outraged by this, everyone else knows he is right.  It has been shown over and over again that women lie more than men.
Hell, the few studies that ever looked into the rates at which women lie about rape consistently showed that over 50% of rape accusations are false.  This isn't talking about ones that could not be proven, it only counts as false cases where the accuser admitted that she was lying.  The actual percentage is likely much higher.


That's not even true.  The FBI says it's around 8%.
 
2017-04-21 05:47:25 PM  

inglixthemad: Theaetetus: inglixthemad: #BelieveHer isn't about investigation, as the joy over the frat being vandalized, calls for expulsion without any real evidence, et al., show.

... he says, linking to an article in which the word "believe" doesn't even appear once.


[bunch of irrelevant pictures later]

So... got nothing, huh? Well. Okay, then.
 
2017-04-21 05:52:11 PM  
"People can be very good at lying," defense lawyer Steve Farese said during closing arguments in a Memphis case Thursday. "Women can be especially good at it because they're the weaker sex and we ... and we want to protect them and not have anybody take advantage of them, at least I do."

"My job is not to care if anybody gets offended," Farese said by phone later Thursday. "Smart people will see it for what it is."


We do, We see it as a pathetically weak and poorly thought out argument put forth by a sexist moron who is crap at his job.

Women are good at lying because they practice more.

Duh.
 
2017-04-21 06:02:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: dragonchild: Farking Clown Shoes: Farese made his comments about women lying before a jury of 11 women and three men.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Not necessarily.  I know juries are about the furthest thing from randomly selected, but supposing this one was (for lack of better information), as many as five of those women could completely buy into this defense and far from being bizarre, it'd be expected.  Heck, 42% of women voted for a JFP who publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women.
[ichef.bbci.co.uk image 624x258]
That's nationwide.  This trial is in Tennessee.  Those ain't Women's Studies majors from UC-Berkeley packed in the box.

This isn't to disparage the accuser or back up the "women are liars" statement, but just to point out that women are NOT the unified supportive monolithic group they're portrayed as, so neither side is playing a particularly dumb numbers game.  Packing the jury with women is far from a sure bet for the prosecution, to the point that the defense was probably unfazed by it.  The defense has good reasons to be unconcerned with saying "women are liars" to a group of them.

Women seldom lie about rape.


Ahem. Let's live in reality where crappy people do crappy things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4250470/Sacred-Heart-Universi​t​y-student-admits-lied-rape.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1182828​3

http://nypost.com/2017/01/27/emmett-tills-accuser-admits-it-was-all-a​-​lie/

http://q13fox.com/2017/03/23/teen-says-she-lied-about-3-black-men-kid​n​apping-gang-raping-her/

https://newsone.com/1009615/nun-mary-turcotte-admits-she-was-lying-af​t​er-blaming-black-man-for-rape/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitt​er

Just a few off the tip of the iceberg.

/not defending rape or rapists, just observing reality
 
2017-04-21 06:03:19 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Theaetetus: inglixthemad: #BelieveHer isn't about investigation, as the joy over the frat being vandalized, calls for expulsion without any real evidence, et al., show.

... he says, linking to an article in which the word "believe" doesn't even appear once.

[bunch of irrelevant pictures later]

So... got nothing, huh? Well. Okay, then.


Because, of course, it's a complete coincidence that the Phi Kappa Psi house was vandalized, in that manner at the exact same time those allegations were made, and all of those protests demanding expulsion. You're passing the Schwarzschild radius here Theaetetus. If they didn't #BelieveHer then why did they vandalize Phi Kappa Psi in that manner?
 
2017-04-21 08:17:12 PM  

Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Because we are supposed to judge with feelings (#BelieveHer) according to feminists

That's not what that means. That's not what any of this means.

It's exactly what certain people sought to create, using the tag #BelieveHer. You are, unequivocally, supposed to support and believe a rape "victim" / "survivor".

No, it really didn't mean that. It meant that, as in every single other instance of an accusation of a crime, you presume that the complaining witness' testimony is credible until proven otherwise. That's it. It's simply asking for the same exact standard used in literally every other case.


What?

That's ludicrous.  Before we even find out what they were wearing, or may have made it seem like they were interested,  Or why she was even there?
 
2017-04-21 08:42:09 PM  

inglixthemad: Theaetetus: That's all that it was ever about. Like, if you go to the police and report your car being stolen, they ask about the make and model, where you left it, who might have had access to it, etc. They don't say, "are you sure you didn't let someone borrow it? You've let people borrow your car before, haven't you? Do you really want some guy's life ruined, just because you let them borrow the car but now have regrets?"

Not really. If I go and say "alleged victim" you're all up accusing me of calling the person a liar. Why? You claim you can assign the complainant's statements the status of truth and not be coloring your perception of the accused. That's some weapons grade cognitive dissonance.

Theaetetus: And, what you're doing is presuming that the complaining witness has committed multiple crimes, unless they prove their innocence. I guess you don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty" if the subject is female, huh?

However, let's take a look at how the real world works. In cases of forcible stranger rape, the cops aren't likely to ask you if you were sure. I mean, knife, dark alley, they're going to jump to their own conclusion it wasn't consensual. On the other hand if the people know each other, especially if they've engaged in sexual relations before, they are going to ask. They are also going to ask a whole bunch of other questions you might find objectionable, like if alcohol was involved. Their job is to gather the facts to hand over to the prosecutor. Many won't go out of their way to hurt the alleged victim, but the alleged victim has to tell the whole story. You can chant #BelieveHer all you want to, it isn't your job to ferret out details. I'm not claiming it's pleasant, but if they don't get all of the details they can something might come back and bite the prosecutor in the a$$ at trial, resulting in a not guilty.

Theaetetus: Those questions might come up later, when they find some guy with the car who says, "I borrowed it yesterday, he said I could." But they don't come up initially -instead, the victim is believed until some evidence suggests otherwise.

Which is what's going to happen after they pull out every possible detail from the alleged victim. They're going to go to the person the victim accuses, and start raking the alleged perpetrator over the coals. If you think their questions to alleged victim are insensitive, the police are not very kind to alleged perpetrators either. The standard police tactics apply, like lying to them to get them to confess, preferably after luring them into the station without a lawyer. Getting them to go over the event multiple times, trying to trip them up with slight inconsistencies, standard police stuff. Again, it's them attacking the details to try and work it out before they hand it over to the prosecutor.

#BelieveHer isn't about investigation, as the joy over the frat being vandalized, calls for expulsion without any real evidence, et al., show. #BelieveHer is all about assigning someone the status of victim without a trial, declaring the accused guilty, and if mob justice happens (as it does from time to time) it's all good. Those ebil rapists Phi Kappa Psi (and others) deserve whatever they get. Unfortunately if something blows up spectacularly, it gives any future claimant one more obstacle to climb to probe their case.


No, it's really not.  You're taking this too far.

#believeher is quite simple really.  Rape is the only crime that when someone makes an accusation they'll immediately try to talk them out of it.

"what were you wearing?"

"why did you go back to his place if you weren't interested in sex?" or alternatively "why did you invite him over if you didn't want it?"

"did you fight back?"

"why didn't you fight back against a man twice your size?"

Etc.

The list goes on and on about how instead of investigating it they will come up with reasons on why not to.

#believeher is not about immediately assigning guilt, it's just saying "ok" and investigating it like its any other farking crime.  That's it.  Believing her is only about instead of finding ways to blame the victim immediately, just do their damn jobs. If that leads to questions about her credibility, so be it, that's when you ask them, not just putting the blame on them because they were wearing something promiscuous and asking for it because they thought they could hang out at either of their places.... Alone.
 
2017-04-21 08:43:33 PM  

dkulprit: Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Theaetetus: inglixthemad: Because we are supposed to judge with feelings (#BelieveHer) according to feminists

That's not what that means. That's not what any of this means.

It's exactly what certain people sought to create, using the tag #BelieveHer. You are, unequivocally, supposed to support and believe a rape "victim" / "survivor".

No, it really didn't mean that. It meant that, as in every single other instance of an accusation of a crime, you presume that the complaining witness' testimony is credible until proven otherwise. That's it. It's simply asking for the same exact standard used in literally every other case.

What?

That's ludicrous.  Before we even find out what they were wearing, or may have made it seem like they were interested,  Or why she was even there?


Apparently someone didn't follow the discussion on why language matters. It's so cute when someone makes presumptions. Why, it's like you're trying to make my point for me! Keep using those feels. That's what the lawyer in this case - who made that idiotic argument - is counting on!
 
2017-04-22 12:16:33 AM  

dragonchild: dittybopper: That's a contradictory statement. You *CAN'T* get it right unless it is fair.
Nope.  I used to think that way because it seems intuitive, but it's a dangerously pervasive misconception.  Right and fair are two different things, and that's the problem.  And I'm starting to realize many problems in this country are directly attributable to misguided attempts at "fairness" at the expense of what is right.

Let's assume for the sake of argument a rape case where the accuser is stereotypically pure and innocent, the very reflection of what far-right theocrats would have a young woman be:  naive, honest, and completely oblivious about sex.  Hell, let's go the full extreme and make the victim a prepubescent minor instead.  And let's assume the accused is an infamous longtime and dangerous sex offender and the only reason the victim is even alive is that some witnesses walked in on the scene by sheer chance.  I'm basically using reductio ad absurdum for simplicity, because this point is harder to see in cases of nuance.  But the above scenario is at least within the realm of possibility.
It is most certainly UNFAIR that the accused gets a defense at all, let alone a day in court.  Trials are long and expensive and stressful and far from fallible.  The accused could get off on a technicality.  The judge could be crooked.  The accused could be wealthy and politically connected.  If the prosecution farks up then more people are put at risk.  Common sense would basically say we should just skip the trial and go straight to mob justice.  THAT's fair.
But we give the accused a defense anyway because that's the right thing to do, even if it's massively unfair to the victim, for reasons stressed by the Founding Fathers and you're well familiar with.  We could make an exception for my hypothetical example, but justice is an absurdly easy thing to corrupt, which is why our system took great pains to be adversarial (which has its own problem) and still very frequently get ...


TLDR, you don't have the balls to join a lynch mob, but you feel they have the right idea.
 
2017-04-22 12:31:52 AM  
cdn2.thr.com
...But let's DO go on about how it is unjust to even let an accused rapist have a defense, dragonchild.
 
2017-04-22 12:48:55 AM  

dragonchild: dittybopper: That's a contradictory statement. You *CAN'T* get it right unless it is fair.
Nope.  I used to think that way because it seems intuitive, but it's a dangerously pervasive misconception.  Right and fair are two different things, and that's the problem.  And I'm starting to realize many problems in this country are directly attributable to misguided attempts at "fairness" at the expense of what is right.

Let's assume for the sake of argument a rape case where the accuser is stereotypically pure and innocent, the very reflection of what far-right theocrats would have a young woman be:  naive, honest, and completely oblivious about sex.  Hell, let's go the full extreme and make the victim a prepubescent minor instead.  And let's assume the accused is an infamous longtime and dangerous sex offender and the only reason the victim is even alive is that some witnesses walked in on the scene by sheer chance.  I'm basically using reductio ad absurdum for simplicity, because this point is harder to see in cases of nuance.  But the above scenario is at least within the realm of possibility.
It is most certainly UNFAIR that the accused gets a defense at all, let alone a day in court.  Trials are long and expensive and stressful and far from fallible.  The accused could get off on a technicality.  The judge could be crooked.  The accused could be wealthy and politically connected.  If the prosecution farks up then more people are put at risk.  Common sense would basically say we should just skip the trial and go straight to mob justice.  THAT's fair.
But we give the accused a defense anyway because that's the right thing to do, even if it's massively unfair to the victim, for reasons stressed by the Founding Fathers and you're well familiar with.  We could make an exception for my hypothetical example, but justice is an absurdly easy thing to corrupt, which is why our system took great pains to be adversarial (which has its own problem) and still very frequently get ...


That was all extremely well stated and argued. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it, but I'm in no position (late, at night, just binged gaming for a few hours) to put a lot of thought in it; nevertheless, I wanted to commend you on an excellent post.
 
2017-04-22 12:56:04 AM  

dkulprit: Rape is the only crime that when someone makes an accusation they'll immediately try to talk them out of it.


:You should have locked your doors."
"You know you're not supposed to be in that neighborhood."
"What did you say to them?"
"What did you do leading up to the attack?"
"You didn't think it sounded too good to be true?"

Yeah, you're full of it.
 
2017-04-22 04:37:04 AM  

jshine: mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?

I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.

On what basis?  ...not because I'm offended -- Fark is too full of generalizations and poorly-formed assumptions to bother with that -- but I'm genuinely curious.

/ Chief.


This might help.

/Remember, mooseyfate knows what is in your mind and in your heart
//There is no hiding from the righteous wrath of mooseyfate
///Except through anonymous posts on Fark, of course
 
2017-04-22 11:46:54 AM  

NoahBuddy: jshine: mooseyfate: jshine: mooseyfate: A statutory rape apologist

Also, WTF?  I hadn't posted anything to the thread prior to the line you quoted, so where could you possibly get that from?

I've had you Farkers as that for a while, chief.  Choose your words more wisely and people won't use them to form opinions about you.

On what basis?  ...not because I'm offended -- Fark is too full of generalizations and poorly-formed assumptions to bother with that -- but I'm genuinely curious.

/ Chief.

This might help.

/Remember, mooseyfate knows what is in your mind and in your heart
//There is no hiding from the righteous wrath of mooseyfate
///Except through anonymous posts on Fark, of course


Indeed; I found that thread and posted a link to it further up this one.  It was just mooseyfate reading too quickly and not paying attention to who was saying what in that thread (which, in retrospect, was not entirely his fault, as several other posters were also mistaking who had posted what).  For instance (to quote my own words, rather than a 3rd party mis-quote):

http://www.fark.com/comments/9331835/105317065
jshine: mooseyfate: So. In your opinion: was what this youth pastor did acceptable or not?
Of course not!


I think that 3-word summary from the thread-in-question could scarcely be more succinct, clear, or emphatic.

Since there was a lot of mis-quoting in that thread from multiple posters, I can't fault him too much for his errors, though I will fault him for being so vociferous in this thread, making accusations built on a foundation that he was unable to even recall.  It's generally a Good Idea to know why you're attacking someone, rather than blindly spewing invective based on half-remembered errors.
 
2017-04-22 12:48:55 PM  

Fano: ...But let's DO go on about how it is unjust to even let an accused rapist have a defense, dragonchild.

See, now this is amusing.  Because I basically made almost the exact same point as To Kill A Mockingbird, if this twat made it through before going all "TL;DR" AND passing judgment.

One or the other, oh ye of little patience.
 
Displayed 207 of 207 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report