[QUOTE=Huerta88]
You do not understand the first thing about the philosophy behind our criminal law system and Constitution, which presume that it is far better for “real” victims to get “fucked” by letting off their in-fact-guilty defendants when the case is close, than for “some honest people to get fucked” by convicting or indicting clearly-innocent defendants.
[/QUOTE]
Complete bullshit. You can talk about philosophy all you want, but in reality, it has to work that way. In a sexual assault case, there is often no DNA to test, no witnesses to the crime, and no overwhelming physical evidence. Should we not believe anybody who reports a crime like this? The alternative is much worse.
[QUOTE=Xema]
How about DNA - can’t that be compelling?
[/QUOTE]
Many cases don’t involve DNA. DNA is not the end all be all. No DA will agree to that standard. It can be compelling, but it is not the only important thing.
[QUOTE=Xema]
He’s now under investigation by the state bar for such things as unethical statements that implied guilt,
[/QUOTE]
DAs don’t arrest people they don’t think are guilty. Directly stating or implying otherwise would be the problem.
[QUOTE=Xema]
3 lineups that violated standard procedures, and a secret agreement to suppress exculpatory DNA evidence. What would he have had to do for you to feel he did badly?
[/QUOTE]
The “line-up” was a problem, but not too bad in my opinion. The DNA stuff came later, and was obviously completely unethical.
[QUOTE=Xema]
But she had lots of trouble identifying attackers.
Turns out there was essentially no evidence of injury.
Right - that’s how long it took for the accuser to make identifications of alleged attackers.
[/QUOTE]
Cite? I very well could be wrong about this, but I don’t remember it being reported this way.
[QUOTE=Xema]
And a proper response to this is for the DA always to assume there’s a racial component to any incident?
[/QUOTE]
No, but in the real world that fact would certainly influence how, and if, you proceed in this case, and the plausibility of such an occurrence.
[QUOTE=Xema]
This could explain some, though by no means all, of what they said. And why the rush to condemn their students without evidence - where would be the harm in waiting for facts to emerge?
[/QUOTE]
But there was evidence. Initially, we had her statements, her injuries, and apparent medical evidence. While there may have been a rush to judgment, people on both sides did it. If you are against the practice of doing that, fine. But be consistent about it. Plenty of people were calling her a lying whore before all the facts came out too.
[QUOTE=Huerta88]
-
She lied – uncontestable.
-
She almost certainly had sexual relations for money – the driver testified to dropping her off at two hotels for a one hour period each time in the preceding day. Drunken fratboys may hire a stripper to enliven a party. I have a very hard time imagining a single man inviting a woman up to his hotel for a one hour period to “dance” or strip. If you had a gun to your head and were asked what she did in those two hotel rooms, I would venture all the money I had that you would say “Duh – boned or blew some gross guy for money (or maybe they found a true love connection?).” People who have sexual relations for money are known as prostitutes, or “whores.” If they are also lying, this makes them “lying whores.”
-
She had spooge from four different dudes inside her. That’s where the “cum” part comes in.
-
When four different guys shoot their load in you, you’re kind of full of semen. Like a dumpster is full of trash. And when you don’t (apparently) shower or clean up or even change your underwear after the last client/driver/hobo has taken his sloppy fourths, then you are dirty and gross, like a dumpster is dirty and gross. Hence, you are in some very real sense a “cum dumpster.”
Glad to be of help.
[/QUOTE]
And your mother, in all likelihood, is a cocksucker, but it doesn’t mean anyone should refer to her as such. I don’t contest the technical accuracy of the remark, just that it doesn’t advance the discussion. It’s juvenile, crass, and detracts from the other good arguments you have made.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
And this wouldn’t lead you to lend a little credence to the proposition that the complainant might possibly be more likely than most to be mendacious, spurred on by the impulse to lash out at the hated oppressors?
[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
And what, pray, would you have Weirddave DO about the abject failures of the legal system? Hmm? Put on his yellow tights and velvet cape and fly around righting wrongs? All you can DO is vent on it
[/QUOTE]
Or you can donate money or time to places like the innocence project. You can start an awareness campaign to alert people the alarming rates of false reporting. You can push for prosecutions in such cases, or appeal for tougher sentences to your local officials or congressman. Any of those things would help. So yeah, you can do more than vent about it. Esp. when said venting is the type of hateful, selective outrage that I’ve seen in this case, and those people deny their outrage has anything to do with the racial facts of this case. There is a situation like this going on everyday, and it usually doesn’t have this good an outcome, yet I don’t hear all these people (on both sides) picking sides, or even giving a shit. If you want to be pissed fine, but don’t try to pretend it’s because you grossly offended by the perversion of justice. You’re just mad because some white dudes got fucked by a “lying whore” “cum dumpster” black stripper. If those weren’t the circumstances of this case, you probably never would have heard about it, and you would be bitching about he weather instead.
