Maybe it’s just me not being an expert in this particular area, but I don’t understand how you reach this"cracker jack police work" conclusion. The opening paragraph of the article you cited says this:
If the players refused to talk to the police, how were the detectives suppose to interview them in keeping with your expectations? This article also contradicts the claim the players were being cooperative with the authorities. It doesn’t seem that way to me. So this leads me to wonder what were the cops supposed to do? Say “Oh well, the boys don’t wanna tell us anything; guess that means we have to quit and go home?”
Maybe I’m not understanding some things. Can you clarify why this is so damning to the police and not to the students themselves?
The athletes didn’t speak to investigators because their lawyers told them to keep their mouths shut. Simple (and wise) legal prudence. I just don’t see the nefarious angle in this situation.
I understand that, astro. But I notice how the article is told from the defense attorney’s point of view. Maybe it’s the objective person in me speaking but I don’t feel I have enough evidence to say that the police has misbehaved just by going by what’s in this article.
But like I said before, it’s possible I’m misunderstanding something that is blatantly obvious to others.
But why this particular stripper? Anyway, from what I hear, “I’m stripping to pay my way through college” ranks up there with “Your call is very important to us” among the great lies of our age.
I know a few who are doing just that. Whether they stop once graduating, or graduate at all, remains to be seen. They are taking school seriously, though.
This would be a good analogy if police witnessed all the events at the party, since the police officer would logically be an eyewitness to your speeding.
A better analogy would be if somebody claimed you had been driving recklessly with no other eyewitnesses. Would we be more willing to believe the claim if you were a 17 year old boy versus a 40 year old woman?
I am saying that absent other evidence, I would be more willing to believe that a 17 year old boy was driving recklessly than a 40 year old woman. Even moreso if the accusation was street racing.
Why is this unreasonable?
Note: I have no idea how old you are. A picked 40 for demographic purposes.
I know you asked monstro, but let me take a stab at this.
I’m trying to imagine being skeptical of a claim that a 40 year old woman was driving recklessly just because of her age, and I’m failing. Your analogy does not pack much power here because 40 year olds drive recklessly all the time. So do 17 year olds, but that doesn’t alter the prevalence of reckless 40 year olds.
If someone came up to you and said they saw a 40 year old driving recklessly, would you automatically raise an eyebrow? What is it about that claim that is so unreasonable on its face? I ask this question sincerely. It’s apparent that me and you have different ideas of what is unreasonable, because I see nothing outlandish or unusual about what you are positing.
Your analogy misses the mark in another way: age and driving is not analogous to race and rape. Life experience is at least partially a function of time (age). A young person does not have the same volume of life experiences that an older person has, and this inexperience affects driving ability and other skills (such as judgement). Which is why we don’t give driver’s licenses to just anyone who is able to pass the driving test. Age is, at least partially, a determinant of driving behavior.
Race, on the other hand, determines nothing except what box you check off on the census form. If that. It is a social construct that is correlated with a bunch of stuff. But race does not confer any special traits or abilities; it is a label and that’s it.
It’s unreasonable if it contradicts the fundamental postulate of modern PC thought, which is that people of all races behave the same, on average (with certain exceptions that can be blamed on white racism). Remember that a postulate is something that is self evident and does not require proof. Any evidence or argument that contradicts the postulate is ipso facto wrong. Any person who believes otherwise is a racist and is therefore wrong.
Note: I have no idea how old you are. A picked 40 for demographic purposes.
[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the debate! Join your fellow dumbasses on the shortbus! They, like you, have willfully ignored my 127 iterations of “in the absence of better, dispositive evidence.” Which, one presumes, the arresting officer’s radar gun and eyewitness observation would qualify as!
Read my post. Almost certainly, as far as I can tell, the DA (via the police) violated (if not Miranda) the N.C. rules of professional responsibilty for lawyers. I’ve invited but not found a contra viewpoint. I was frankly astonished when I heard about this – it was pretty blatant. Clearly, with the grand jury sitting on Monday, the DA is panicking – it seems he has nothing and was sufficiently desperate to violate the ethics rules by trying to talk to represented parties outside the presence of counsel.
Hey, his panicky desperation reminds me of . . . . some of the posters on here.
I didn’t used to believe women indulged en masse in rape fantasies. But the Kool-Aid fanaticism with which some of the posters are wed to believing in the reality and commonness of brutal white-on-black rapes, in spite of all statistcial evidence to the contrary, really does convince me that there is some strange, fucked-up strand of the female mind that really gets off on dreaming about degradation and rape, even when they aren’t real risks.
Pretty oogy, sick stuff. But, knock yourself out ladiezzz.
Read my post on the N.C. ethics rules. It is a per se violation thereof for an attorney to make dircet contact (by himself, or through agents i.e. the P.D.) with a party whom he knows to be represented by counsel.
Dumbass:
The Fifth Amendment provides accused parties with plenary immunity from giving testimony if they choose not too.
Let me take another stab at this, Ellis Dee. I believe that deep down you know the shakiness of the “logic” being bounced around, but for some reason you just can’t let go.
Say I’m at a party in a friend-of-a-friend’s house. Most of the people at the party are white; I’m black. Over the course of the party, I and everyone else become intoxicated. Suddenly I wake up in a musty laundry room with my skirt pulled over my head, my panties pulled down to my knees. I’m torn and bleeding and bruised. I believe I’ve been sexually assaulted. But I have no idea who did it.
The cops are called.
Please choose from the following what you would recommend they do:
View each male who was present at the party as a potential suspect. Take their DNA, question their whereabouts, do a background check, etc.
First examine the crime stats. Because black males are disproportionately represented in the sexual offender category, the police should treat the three black male party-goers as suspects, letting the white males go (or at least get to them when all the black guys have been interrogated).
View me as a probable liar, since many accusers of rape are liars. And since I’m the lone black woman at the party, definitely view me as a liar. Don’t search for evidence, don’t interview anyone, don’t even do a rape kit on me. Send everyone home and cuff me for filing a false report.
OK, forget the cops. You were at the party. Do you believe I’m telling the truth? Do you think one of the black guys probably did it, even though there were more white guys there? Are crime stats running through your head?
If you don’t like that scenario, how about this one?
You’re a 21-year-old driving a tricked-out Mustang. You collide with a 50-year-old college professor driving an old Volvo station wagon. The cop pulls up to the scene, whips out his trusty PDA, and looks up all the accident reports for the past ten years. He decides, after a cursory examination, that 21-year-olds are more likely to be at fault than 50-year-olds, especially when the former drives sport cars. There are few signs indicating who’s fault it is, but the cop puts most of the blame on you, based on inference from the data.
Don’t like that analogy? How about this one?
You’ve been chosen to sit in the jury of a criminal case. A forty-year-old, wheelchair bound man claims that a high school student mugged him on the subway. The accused? She’s a fourteen-year-old honor roll student. The only witnesses are the man and a neighbor who identified the girl in a line-up.
Fourteen-year-old honor roll students are virtually absent from the crime stats. Do you let this fact prejudice your analysis of the case?
Because that’s what it seems like is going on in this thread. The mentality coming across–whether intentional or not–is: White lacrosse team players aren’t likely candidates for rapists, based on the stats, so of course this whore is lying. You guys are saying crime stats become relevant only when there’s a lack of evidence, but I somehow doubt that it would stop there for you. If you’ve got two accusers–one accuses a black man and another a white man–do you weigh the merit of the two accusations the same, all things being equal? If I accuse a black guy of raping me and I don’t have DNA evidence, is this accusation still more credible than if I accuse a white guy of the same thing? What if I’m a white woman? Will I have a higher burdern of proof if I’m black than if I’m white?
If your assessment of an accusation changes based on what the players look like, how is this fair or reasonable?
Heh. Huerta scoffed when you with the face accused him and his toadies of being overly-fixated on the race angle. And then we have an idiot here basically proving her point. Forget that the accused are young, drunken, horny guys. They’re white. Their whiteness prevents them from raping black women. The stats support this. It’s “PC” to think otherwise.
I have toadies? Why don’t I feel more powerful? I’ve never (AFAIK) interacted with another poster (pro or con) on this thread. One begins to suspect that independent thought opposed to you strikes you as illegitimate. Tell the truth: You took women’s studies, didn’t you? It’s okay, in Marxism, dissent is deviance, I know how that game is played.
Welcome to the dumbass camp, in any event.
Like all your dumbass sistren, you have been forced to invoke terms that none of us have used. “Prevents?” Who the Hell said that? Oh, you, that’s all.
If white-guy DNA had showed up on this girl, I would personally (upon showing of lack of consent) pull the switch to execute these guys. And no, that is not a joke. I am among those who think the U.S. Supreme Court erred in eliminating capital punishment for real rape.
But, despite an alleged three-orifice gang-bang, no DNA seems to have shown up. Things that make you go Hmmmm.
Every single conversation in this thread has been prefaced on “In the absence of definitive DNA, eyewitness, or other testimony, my first-cut assumption might be influenced by the historical patterns of . . .” Every single dumbass response thereto has been prefaced on people like you saying: "So, you believe that race makes a white man INCAPABLE of raping a black woman . . . "
Do you understand why people have contempt for women’s studies? Do you realize the damage you do to the repuatation of women for logical capacity when you argue like a retarded four year old?
Huerta88, exactly what is your fixation with women’s studies? You seem to think that anyone disagreeing with you in this thread took women’s studies and is retarded - you’ve mentioned this several times now. Of course, I can state that I’ve taken many university courses, and none of them were women’s studies. But this wouldn’t matter to you. You’d say I’m one of their “ilk.” Your reasoning being that I disagree with you, and therefore I am of low intelligence.
Get off your freaking high horse and stop with the ad hominems.
And thank you monstro. Wonderful post.
It makes me question Huerta88’s reading comprehension when you say:
Yeah, you keep saying that the presence of evidence makes it unnecessary to rely on crime stats. But I don’t believe you actually believe this. Basically what you’re saying is that in order for you to believe an accusation, you need to have a solid estimation of its likelihood of being true (which, by the way, the DOJ crime stats do not provide). This is fine if the accusation is outrageous. But the idea of a group of drunk, horny guys raping a girl is NOT outrageous. It’s a likely scenario.
Go ahead, don’t believe the accuser. I’m suspicious myself (Marxist feminist indeed, motherfucker!) But the lack of evidence should be at the heart of your disbelief, not the crime stats (which probably support her case more than you think they do–when ALL factors, not just race, are considered).
Oh yeah…you’re the biggest dumbass in this thread. You’ve got two experts–a criminologist (wring) and a statistics expert (you with the face, who happens to be an epidemiologist)–basically chewing your ass up. Nothing you say gels with the concepts of fairness, objectivity, or rationality. But you just keep believing you’re right. Hopefully one day you’ll find yourself at the ugly end of a someone’s prejudiced “justice”, and you’ll see why your arguments are so very wrong and twisted.
Thanks for the compliment, Waenara. Thanks for pointing out the questions that Huerta will probably never answer. And thank you for being in this thread.
Well, then you “don’t believe it.” Herewith we have proof, cited and all. Yet if DNA or eyewitness evidence had come in, I’ve stated, and all other predicates being satisfied, I’d (not joking) kill the white rapists myself.
Really? O Rly? REALLY? This is more telling and useful than anything you’ve said to date. Right now – RIGHT NOW – there are bars open within 300 feet of where I live. They are (if the past if prologue, and I am on record as believing it is) full of “drunk, horny guys.” Seriously, really drunk, really horny guys.
I’ve been to these bars. I’ve been one of the drunk guys. I’ve never raped anyone.
I’ve never (in eight years in this town) heard of one of those drunk, horny guys raping someone.
Yet you call rape by any random group of drunk, horny guys a “likely scenario?”
CITE? Anecdote, even, since I can’t come up with one?
Drunk, horny guys, IME, almost universally either find a consensual partner or (much more likely) go home and sleep it off at the frat house.
You say, though, that it’s a “likely scenario” that they rape. Okay, fair play to you.
Prove it.
The stats don’t support you. Our common experience doesn’t support you.
What, seriously, does? Or is it just the “I really feel like drunk horny guys might be rapists” rape fantasy that was inculcated in some undergrad dumbass course?