And, Bingo! Race Raised in Bryant Case

I have no idea, no opinion, on whether he’s guilty or innocent, but this ain’t helpin’ either side:

EAGLE, Colo. (AP) – Kobe Bryant’s attorneys suggested in open court Friday that the Los Angeles Lakers star may have been falsely accused of rape because he is black. The comment from attorney Pamela Mackey . . . “There is lots of history about black men being falsely accused of this crime by white women,” Mackey said.

I really, really, really, really wish I could say I’m surprised this kind of shit happened.

Unfortunately, I’m not.

That Mackey lady really disgusts me.

Y’know, I could buy the possibility of a black man being accused of rape by some white bitch…

However, I consider it far more likely that he’s being accused 'cuz of money and fame.

Or there’s the vague possiblility that he’s being accused because he actually did it…

Maybe. But do you really think his being black had anything to do with that?

Well, no. Of course not. Did I say anything to imply that I did?

One can speculate about him being accused because he’s black, or rich, if it suits one’s paranoia, or if one is his defense lawyer trying to help his case somehow. But I would say there is an enormous likelihood, near certainty in fact, that he was accused because there was adequate reason to think he’s guilty. Not saying he is, necessarily, but I doubt the DA would have brought the case if he didn’t think there was some real justification besides greed or prejudice.

Sure. In the deep South, between about 1865 and 1965.

What that’s got to do with Eagle County Colorado now is a bit baffling.

Try to look at it from the other side:

Even if Bryant is absolutely innocent, he can’t prove it.
If he is innocent, which I have no way of knowing, I can easily see why he and his lawyers would resort to such tactics.
Being innocent, and taking the high road during a trial, is a very good way to get convicted.

He doesn’t have to.

It’s the prosecution’s burden to prove he’s guilty, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fortunately for him, he doesn’t have to. The prosecution has to prove that he’s guilty.

Is there an echo in here?

The sad fact is that in cases such as this the physical evidence is almost certainly going to be inconclusive, and it is highly unlikely that witnesses will pop up at this point.
The case will come down to who gets believed.
If Bryant is innocent, and takes the high road by relying on his innocence alone to get him out of this, then most likely he will be going to jail for a long time.
Jurors expect an innocent man to attack his accuser’s credibility, and to use tactics like that which prompted this thread. Failure to do these things would be seen as a sign of guilt. (If he is innocent, why isn’t he attacking his accuser for telling such awful lies about him? He must be guilty.)
In fact, if you really think about it, is this wrong? Why would an innocent man hesitate to attack someone who told such horrific lies about them?

Does anyone else find it strange that they played the race card in a case where even the defense admits that the defendant had sex with the accuser? Um, OK, he’s black. Back to consent, the only issue that matters.

Maybe I should explain. In the old days shimmer, shimmer it wasn’t uncommon for a white girl or woman to accuse a black man of rape after consensual sex with someone. If the “poor girl” was raped by a black man the community would go crazy with rage and ignore her having slept around. Basically, it was used as a cover story for consensual intercourse.

Here, we started with both parties admitting there was a sexual encounter. Now we know Kobe Bryant is black.

Um, wasn’t his accuser black?

Hmm. I don’t have a lot of personal experience with juries and such. I hope you’re wrong, but I suspect you’re probably not. Which is a depressing thought.

Yeah, but…doesn’t that pretty much put you in the same place? An innocent man would naturally attack his accuser; and of course a guilty man would do the same thing, because to not do so would be tantamount to an admission of guilt. So it’s meaningless either way. Are juries really that stupid? Wait, on second thought…maybe I don’t want to know.

It’s clear from the testimony at the pretrial hearing that the prosecution’s case is quite weak. In fact, the presiding judge advised the prosecutors that they had a weak case - barely strong enough to go to trial.

So Mackey ( a white woman, btw), in her position as an experienced trial lawyer may be questioning just why an inexperienced prosecutor from a small town chose to pursue an exceptionally weak case against a man with no criminal history.

Mackey didn’t make reference to race at the outset of the proceedings against Bryant. She has doubtless examined the results of several months of extensive investigation of all the parties involved. It’s likely that her statement is based on information that she has recieved as a result of these investigations.

False accusations of crime against black men, including accusations of rape, still occur. We have the high profile cases, like Susan Smith in S.C., Charles Stuart in Boston, and Atkins in Milwaukee. There are doubtless hundreds of others that didn’t get national media coverage. Many of the men freed from death row due to gross irregularities in the justice system were black. Often these men were charged with crimes they simply couldn’t have committed.

In Madison, WI, in the late 90’s there was at least one case where a white woman claimed that she was raped by a black man, and then recanted her story when questioned by police. She admitted that she made the story up to get more attention from her boyfriend.

Well, it seems obvious to me then.

Kobe Bryant couldn’t have done it because he is a Black man and his accuser is white.

Add to that the fact that he is rich. Rich men don’t rape people. It only looks that way because they often get sued for “easy” money.

Further, Kobe could not have raped her because the woman was currently sexually active with probably more than one male. No sexually active woman is ever raped.

Finally, the woman was taking medication for mental illness. There are two legal principles involved here. 1) People who take medication for mental illness can neither detect nor remember accurately what has happened to them sexually. 2) People with mental illnesses can never be raped.

This demented, sex-crazed, gold-digging white woman has victimized our Kobe!

I am withholding judgment of Kobe Bryant’s guilt or innocence until his trial is over. Even then I may not have an opinion. But I am also going to give his accuser the same benefit. Just as his blackness and wealth don’t make him a rapist, her being white, middle-classed and medicated doesn’t mean that she can’t be raped.

Whoa, do kiss your momma with that mouth? Seriously, I mean I know the ManTM is out to keep the brothers down, but lay off the caucasian ladies. I wonder if you’d use that term to describe a black woman making the same accusations…besides, some of my best friendds are white women :slight_smile:
Zoe, billiant, can I get a hallelujah for Zoe’s post?

But hey, Kobe is the one looking at a short period of probation and possibly community service OMG!, his defense team should try to rape the woman again as often as possible. :rolleyes:

Um, no, she isn’t.