Well, I will state my opinion that I wish she would go to jail. It’s bullshit that people can make these claims and cases go forward and the accused pretty much has to prove that they didn’t do it - not the other way around like it should be. However, this is coming from someone who was falsely accused of rape in the past so I am obviously biased.
If your goal was to surpass the stupidity of your previous post, mission accomplished. It is becoming more and more clear that you simply lack the capacity for logical thought.
I said “There was no physical evidence against the three students. The ENTIRE case rested precisely on the lineup identification.”
There was no physical evidence against these three students. The sole reason they were charged is the lineup. There was other evidence in the case, evidence that suggested the story was a lie, but there was no other evidence against the three students.
How is that not what I described? From your own cite, for the final lineup she was shown pictures of all the lacrosse players who were suspects, with no fillers.
What your cite doesn’t mention is that she was told ahead of time that she would only be shown pictures of suspects and there would be no fillers. This is probably even more important than not having fillers, since in the first lineup the “fillers” were actually other players, but since she was told there were fillers she did not identify anyone.
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/468272-p3.html
It also fails to mention that she had already been shown pictures of the players before, but at that time was told that not every picture was a suspect, and that time she did not identify anyone, including two students she would later identify. Her descriptions of the attackers were also drastically different than the appearance of the students.
This is not a “stupid move.” It is more than enough to throw out the case. Again: If there is no evidence against you except for identification by your accuser, and she already failed to identify you when given a lineup that contained non-suspects, and then only identified you in a lineup in which she was told beforehand that every single picture was a suspect and no matter who she identified would be charged, are you seriously saying the case against you should move forward?
Can you see how what you are saying might, to a rational person, seem mind numbingly stupid?
Part of your problem is that you are unable to distinguish between the questions of “was there a rape” and “did these three students commit rape.”
The scariest thing about this case to me is that the only reason the students are finally being cleared is that the story was shown to be a complete lie. If the woman had actually been raped after she left the party by the short, fat men with moustaches that she described, the students would be in a world of trouble. Nifong’s tactics were designed to falsely convict the students, and were only stopped short by the nonexistence of the crime in the first place. False identifications like this are the number one cause of false convictions, and the ACLU has worked to stop them. Unfortunately we have people like you, who don’t have enough brain cells to think straight, saying “oh, I don’t have a problem with it.” On behalf of all the innocent people in prison, let me just say FUCK YOU.
People who break the law in a significant or ongoing fashion are, as a general matter, less-good and less-trustworthy people than those who do not. There are exceptions, and you may choose to regard prostitution as some grand act of civil disobedience. Most non-outlier members of our society do not, and that still leave’s LWCM’s history of car theft, an “act involving moral turpitude” which centuries of legal history regard as indicative of diminished credibility.
As for the rest of your post – steady on, I now know that New Zealand’s outstanding points of national pride are that it has legal prostitution and transsexual mayors, good luck with that down there.
Dumbfuck:
Do you not understand the difference between “rapes” and “rape prosecutions?” “They cite [but you don’t, dumbass – ed.] a figure stating that 75 percent to 80 percent of rape prosecutions do not involve forensic evidence such as DNA.”
There are many reasons that DNA might not be used in a given prosecution – for instance, in alleged “date rapes” where there is no question that the accuser and accused had sex, why test the spooge? If there are eyewitnesses, likewise, DNA does not figure. My statement was that DNA evidence would likely be available if needed in most rape cases, and that increasingly, police and prosecutors ought to look to and be influenced by its presence, absence, or nature. In the past, if you were allegedly raped alone in a bathroom, there would necessarily be only one factor the investigators could take into account – the believability of your alleged percipient testimony. Now, there is an additional category of potential evidence – forensics. My only suggestion, dumbass, was that unlike in the single-data point universe, where investigators had no option but to focus on the accuser’s word alone, now they should look for and place greater emphasis on the probably-available forensic evidence, especially when it in no way jibes with the testimony (“they raped me in all orifices with no condoms, but did not leave any DNA or pubic hairs”). Rapes have been and still could be prosecuted on accuser testimony alone, but there’s this little concept of “corroboration” that pervades the law of evidence. I won’t trouble your intellect with it except to summarize: corroboration is a good thing, its absence is a less good thing, and evidence specifically going against the primary witness’s testimony is a huge red flag.
No one but you has said that LWCM did not have the “ability to be raped” or that she “g[a]ve up her rights as a human being.” Go have that argument elsewhere. All that has been actually said here is that people who commit crimes and other acts of social deviancy have somewhat diminished credibility – in the eyes of the government (who won’t hire felons), employers, the legal system, and pretty much everyone. Drug dealers “have the ability to be robbed,” and it actually happens quite frequently. Do they receive the same attention, credence, and compassion and prompt police action when (if) they go to demand that the people who robbed them be prosecuted? They probably don’t, and that’s just life. This does not amount to a free pass to rape prostitutes or rip-off dope dealers; when those crimes take place, and can be substantiated clearly, ideally by evidence beyond the somewhat-untrustworthy complainant’s complaint, I’m all for it. It’s just hard to prove who struck John when you involve yourself in sordid murky circumstances.
But even better - if you don’t want your credibility as a complainant diminished, here’s an idea: don’t do credibilty-diminishing things.
You can catch the whole thing here, commercial free. The interview with the AG is particularly compelling. Mangum is clearly delusional, either by nature or because she has convinced herself that it actually happened.
This is where the “suspended in air” quote comes from.
Wow.
You think Nifong smelled that she was crazy and that was his reason for never talking to her till just recently? Trying to give himself plausible deniability?
I agree with you that LWCM is probably a nutjob. But self-evident nutjobs who are enabled in their nuttery can do more harm than those who aren’t, and the “black community leaders” and feminists and dumbass faculty who made her a poster girl did no one any favors.
The same enablers, the same warm welcome for false accusations, have allowed Tawana Brawley, to this very day, to maintain that her story was true, and most in the mainstream just roll their eyes as she continues to have her supporters and as Sharpton pays no price for ruining Pagones’ life.
When I see segments of the “black community” reflexively defending the indefensible (O.J., Tawana, LWCM), I think, why does no one call them on this?
I’m afraid its because people (not least white liberals) really don’t expect much of the black community, and because the portions of the black community that don’t rally to champion liars also don’t make clear enough that they disdain the flash-mobs who will show up to excoriate whitey, without evidence or in the face of the evidence, at the drop of a hat or at the first appearance of the race hustlers.
Which is kind of sad. Because it implies that white liberals and more mainstream black people really do think the “black community” at large isn’t capable of, or can’t be expected to display, rational, independent thought. It’s precisely because I think black people can and should reason as reasonably as anyone else that I don’t make this assumption or grant a free pass based on it.
Reminds me of the probably apocryphal story of witch trials where accused witches were tied up and thrown into a pond. If they drowned, they were proclaimed innocent; if they lived, they were proclaimed guilty because obviously the devil saved them from inescapably drowning. :eek:
I completely agree. 99% of the time I would say charge her and let the chips fall where they may. Here, however, I see no point. Not only has her life turned to shit, and her children’s future become placed in in jeopardy, but the Durham County DA endorsed her story for a year. Who, exactly, would prosecute her? Nifong? His successor? Wouldn’t a defense attorney make a bit of hay with the fact that the DA supported her, despite her numerous contradictions, and that she still believes it?
When this while thing started, I remember thinking that there is no way Nifong could be as evil and despicable as he turned out to be. You called it, and props to you. He deserves 95% of the hit, and I assume that she has already taken her 5%.
Or maybe it’s because “white liberals and mainstream black people” realize that when it comes to condemning the black community, plenty of other people have already volunteered their services.
…can you please define “less good” for me before I comment any further.
Prostitution is legal in my country. It is no more an act of civil disobedience here than opening a corner store, working in a restaurant, or being a CEO of a company.
…I didn’t comment on those allegations. However, why would a history of car thefts have any bearings on an allegation of rape? Lets say a 17 year old preachers daughter alleges rape: why would she have more credence than a prostitue with a history of car theft? What I don’t understand is why you think the police should handle the cases any differently. Don’t you agree they should examine the evidence, question the witnesses etc, in exactly the same way?
By legalizing prostitution, we don’t have the issues that you complain about: prostitutes pay their taxes, and they preform their duties legally. Isn’t that preferable? And, yes, we are quite proud that gender and race aren’t key issues in our election cycle: we’ve had two female Prime Ministers, a Maori Deputy Prime Minister, Muslim MP’s, and more. We were the first country to give women the vote, Maori have a voice in parlianment thanks to the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840, and we have the world’s sexiest group of Banquet Bears. (Dining at restaurants since 1996)
Another reason might be that some people seem to think that disavowing race hustlers and “flash-mobs who will show up to excoriate whitey, without evidence or in the face of the evidence” is the same thing as “condemning the black community”.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh no you don’t, Shodan, you don’t get to build that strawman. I was answering Huerta who said, “I’m afraid its because people (not least white liberals) really don’t expect much of the black community”. So he was the one who made the argument that anybody who doesn’t condemn individuals like “O.J., Tawana, LWCM” is condemning all members of the black community.
Sorry, but that’s bullshit. Heurta88 specifically mentioned who needed to be condemned, and so did I. You even quoted it, so there would be no mistake.
It was you who made the leap to identify race hustlers with the “black community”. That kind of reflexive “circle the wagons around Al Sharpton” knee-jerk racial groupthink is what is being objected to.
People who criticize the race pimps are not condemning the whole black community, and you ought to know it. Pretending they are is half the problem with the credibility of knee-jerks.
Regards,
Shodan
No, Huerta went beyond that. Let me quote him one more time: “I’m afraid its because people (not least white liberals) really don’t expect much of the black community” - so if you don’t join us in condemning this black individual it’s because you’re prejudiced against all black people. I guess by that logic anybody refusing to join a lynch mob must really hate black people.
That attitude is ridiculous. Do you really think there’s anyone who actually feels that black people in general are so prone to be criminals and/or liars that they won’t be bothered by any individual black person who lie or commits a crime? Of course not, people who are genuinely prejudiced against black people love it when somebody who’s black does something wrong because it gives them a chance to loudly proclaim to anyone who’ll listen that this proves them right.
The people who are publicly condemning Crystal Magnum are doing so for a variety of reasons. Some people don’t like her because she’s black or a woman or stripper. Some people don’t like her because she accused some college athletes. Some people don’t like her because she made false accusations of rape. Some people don’t like her because she was used as a tool to win an election. Some people don’t like her because she’ll make other legitimate victims look less credible. Some people are feeling guilty over supporting her earlier and are now swinging to the other side.
And the people who don’t want to publicly condemn Crystal Magnum have a variety of reasons as well. Some people might still believe her allegations. Some people might feel solidarity with her because she’s black or a woman or a stripper. Some people might really dislike college athletes and not want to admit they were innocent. Some people might figure Nifong was the real villain and Magnum was just being used. Some people might figure she’s fucked her own life up so much, any further attacks are unnecessary. Some people might feel that most rape accusations are true and don’t want to give more publicity to one of the rare exceptions. Some people might just figure this whole thing was a mess and not want to get involved.
But the idea that some people don’t want to publicly condemn Crystal Magnum because they don’t like black people? That’s just foolish.
How did you elide “don’t expect much of blacks” to “don’t like blacks?”
I think when, say, the “liberal media” gives Sharpton something of a free pass by treating him as an elder statesman/spokesman for blacks, notwithstanding his previous stupid words and actions, they are doing so because they do indeed like him, or amused by him as some sort of firebrand or lovable rogue. And because they like him, they don’t demand intellectual consistency or honesty of him, so long as he’s colorful. Fine – people who watched minstrel shows probably thought they “liked” those funny lovable shuffling characters – they just didn’t expect much more of them than mush-mouthed jive talk and exaggerated facial expressions (gee, actually sounds a bit like Rev. Al).
This doesn’t only happen in/with the black community, of course; Edwin Edwards openly boasted of the fact that his electorate expected nothing but crookedness from him, but kept electing him gleefully nonetheless. But then Louisiana politics is not the standard by which one probably wishes one’s community to be judged . . . .
Huerta, at this point I’m not really use whether you’re agreeing with me or not.
So let me make my own position clear. I don’t think that not wanted to speak out against a black individual is evidence of a lack of respect for black people in general. But reading your posts, I concluded that this is your position and looking back at what you wrote, I still feel it’s the only clear conclusion. If I’ve misunderstood what you meant, I would suggest you explain what your intent actually was.
Don’t know if the Pit is right place for this, but I am very impressed by the high road the victims are taking. Compare that to the Rutgers girls being “scarred for life”.
What Imus said simply pales in comparison to what Crystal did.
Am I the only one who appreciates the magnitude of this woman’s achievement?
For the first time in American history, she got national attention focused on lacrosse players!
And if she was a radio personality, she’d probably be looking for work right now as well. It’s not as if people were calling for Imus to be imprisoned. For the record, the Rutgers women have accepted Imus’ apology, so I’m not sure which elevated passageway you’d like for them to take.