You are an idiot. I’ve spent all the time I’m willing to spend fighting your ignorance–the war doesn’t look winnable at this point.
WAAAAAAAH!!!
Awwww what’s wong with the poor wittle baby? Did someone try to pick a fight wit the OP and didn’t get their way and is now calling them a bad names and taking their ball home? Run home and cry to your Mommy, wittle baby, and do what you do best: hiding under your bed, sucking your thumb, playing with wittle dollies.
But I did get my way–you continue to show yourself to be an idiot.
umad
All due respect El Presidente, he does have a point with respect to your notion that 60 Minutes is delivering truth the way Moses brought the 10 Commandments down from the mountain. They are a weekly TV news magazine and tweak stories as they see fit to maximize viewer involvement and emotional investment, this often results in Good Guy - Bad Guy dramatic setups where the “truth” might bit a more complex. All the news magazines do this. Newspapers do it. TV does it. Radio does it. Everyone seeing to build and maintain an audience does it.
If you have some time in your busy schedule of freaking out like a child, El Presidente, I’d like some more info on the policies and procedures and rights involved in the judicial board proceedings that were mentioned upthread by Bricker and myself.
Rape apologist than I am (or, if you prefer, malicious false rape accusation victim), I’d like to know exactly what evidence is being offered here.
By that logic I wouldn’t be allowed by many of you people to post a “Screw You (Insert Convicted Murderers Name Here)” because of course, we could nit pick every aspect of their court case, or any trial or tribunal in written history. Just like I now am not allowed by Rand Rover to reference CBS News as a resource because they allegedly make up and exaggerate all their stories, according to him.
But all that is moot, because thanks to the Stockton Police Departments intimidation tactics, the case was not brought to court. And, despite your opinion, University of the Pacific does not neccessarily have to reflect YOUR perfect view of a tribunal, which seems to be based on that “perfect” model the United States justice system, with a sad, shameful, long and costly history of false convictions and setting obviously guilty felons free.
And, in fact, these three gentlemen are LUCKY they did not get what you are implying as a “fair trial” considering the following:
-
The accuser was also a basketball player, and don’t tell me there isn’t some sort of comraderie between athletes, male and female, on a college campus, making it even MORE unlikely she made the story up.
-
There is at least one more female who told a similar tale of sexually deviant behavior and a similar “sexual assault” that took place at almost the exact same place the female basketball player claimed.
-
Considering the sad history in our country of African American males being unfairly convicted by trestimony of white witnesses, if these three men were wrongly expelled or suspended, then where is the ACLU, where is Al Sharpton, where is Jesse Jackson, where is the deserved outcry from the civil rights community protesting the Boards decision? Where is thre army of smarmy defense lawayers taking up these gentlemens cases pro bono to make a name for themselves? The answer:
Nowhere to be found. Because they KNEW they were guilty as sin of raping this young woman. They KNEW there was no case to be made.
- The Board ruled the three basketball players guilty, despite focusing most of their questioning on the victims drinking that night.
I would suggest that the odds are quite high that if tried in a “real” court, all three of these men would be in jail today.
RIGHT?
That’s fine, and I respect that opinion, but just because someone disagrees with you, dont stomp your feet, cry, call someone a name and run away because you can’t “win” an argument. Come on, Holmes, its the Pit, stay and fight, or at the very least just stop posting. To do otherewise is bad form.
Still better than Dateline. At least 60 Minutes doesn’t waste time going into every every commercial break with “Next on Dateline, [clip of upcoming segment, which was already played at the beginning of the show], and later, [clip of later segment, which was also already played at the beginning of the show and will be played again before the next commercial break]…”
60 Minutes plays one clip from each story at the beginning, and that’s it. I once considered recording a Dateline broadcast and eliminating clip replays - I figured the total “content” for a one-hour show would end up somewhere around the 35-minute mark. Plus, Dateline mixes sappy music into their segments, something 60 Minutes thankfully does not.
There is a larger discussion to be had here.
Why do so few rape victims on college campuses report the crimes to anyone, law enforcement or otherwise?
Why would any college think it’s appropriate to say “yes, you violated the sexual assault policy” considering the severity of sexual assault, then punish that via a one semester suspension?
Why do we continue to focus on the behavior of women – what were they wearing, were they drinking, were they flirting – when none of those things have anything to do with the only question in the issue of rape: consent?
But by all means continue to argue about the trustworthiness of 60 Minutes. In the seven and a half minutes in took for me to type this, three more women were raped in America. How fudged 60 Minutes stories are or aren’t is absolutely more important.
I gotta say, I LOVE this. I get a mental image of Holmes and Watson, poking around the moors surrounding Baskerville Hall, looking for clues. It being a particularly cold night, Watson has brought along a hip flask of brandy, intending to share it with Holmes, to ward off the chill of the evening. But before partaking himself, Watson pours an ablution on the ground, in tribute to his peeps, who never returned from Afghanistan…
Bull honkey. A conviction in a court of law (until overturned or demonstrated otherwise) is sufficient evidence of guilt for both of us who asked you about the specifics of the judicial board punishment.
Then show me and/or a prosecutor the money. I have some sympathy for rape victims who are actually intimidated into not pressing charges–but not enough to let them toss unproven accusations around. Get help, get support, and get your case before a court. Hell, I will donate money to her legal defense and/or counseling fund to make that happen–if she has one available for public donations, I’ll put $500 in it.
This is the biggest ongoing tragedy of these stories, because it doesn’t help ANYONE for rapes to go unreported/unprosecuted–victims don’t get closure, real rapists don’t get a free trip to jail, falsely accused rapists don’t get the opportunity to prove their innocence. When there’s no prosecution, the only winners are rapists and false accusers.
I wonder if this is a technical legal issue and dependent on the constituted authority of the judicial board. I could see a situation where judicial boards were only allowed to administer a certain maximum punishment, and anything more would be expected to come from an actual court case.
Wrong. Let’s explore why:
I don’t agree that this is true, and even if it were, I don’t agree it would be particularly dispositive to a jury in a criminal trial.
It’s likely that this piece of evidence would not be admitted at a real trial. Prior bad acts are generally inadmissible against a defendant for the purpose of showing that he acted in conformity therewith.
It’s not likely that this fact would have any play whatsoever in a criminal trial. Certainly the jury would not be allowed to consider it. Can you imagine the prosecutor trying to argue, “If they are innocent, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, then where is Al Sharpton?”
This fact would likely be inadmissible at a criminal trial for the purpose of proving guilt.
So no – none of the factors you mention create any certainty at all that a real criminal trial would find guilt.
And before I can grant any particular weight to the Board’s findings, I’d need to know what rules they used in deciding the case.
For example: What standard of evidence is needed? Must the board find their guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it the lesser standard of “clear and convincing” evidence needed? Maybe just “preponderance of the evidence?” Must the board’s decision be unanimous? Does the accused have the right to an attorney, to confront the witnesses against him, and to decline to incriminate himself without that being held against him?
Oh my God, those poor athletes! GEtting accused of rape and walking away from every charge! The horror!
I’m sure, of course, they were totally innocent, and the women all just changed their minds afterward, or whatever your version of the sexist cliche about buyer’s remorse was.
So: to recap. The women are sluts, the players are innocent, and it’s just crazy shit.
Bricker’s hemorrhoids must be cornrowed, he’s so anal about this nitpicking shit. Bravo. And he never argues on the side of the victim. He always wants to get the rapists and the conservatives off the hook.
Now, shouldn’t you be calling somebody hysterical or some other insult the way you usually do? Go ahead. One can scarcely recognize you without those childish insults you like to throw around when your high opinion of yourself gets questioned.
Bricker is trying to explain what would happen in a real life trial. Jumping up and down like Daffy Duck and trying to bait him really does not change how the legal process works. “Nitpicking shit” is exactly how the the law works, why does this reality infuriate you so?
I would say that there is at least some faint evidence that they are less gullible.
I tend believe that the smart ones are watching whatever they chose while realizing that entertainment, not truth, drives the programing in front of them.
I can safely say though, that I’m witnessing a strong argument that says the idiots watching at this time will most likely show their stupidity by offering a straw man comparison of a cartoon and fictional journalism as proof of authenticity.
I don’t get why there has to be such a disparity. In my time zone, 60 Minutes plays at 7 p.m., Simpsons at 8.
I’m an idiot up there, by the way: obviously she doesn’t need a “legal defense fund”, just a “legal fund”, but the former set of words are graven into my brain as a unit.
Actually, to recap: The facts of the case have not been tried in a court of law. There is no evidence accessible to any of us except hearsay and the finding of a university judicial body of unknown procedure. The women may or may not be sluts, victims, or both. The players may or may not be rapists.
You’re certainly bringing the usual crazy shit, though.
You are a stupid person.