Why didn’t you just go back to this thread on the subject you already started?
So would you think the same of the accused rapist was your child’s gym teacher?
I could see keeping both names out of the news. That doesn’t mean not alerting the employer (if the accused works with children and the accuser is accused of raping a child) and letting them place the accused on leave. But I don’t see why the judge can’t slap a gag order on that employer so they can’t talk to the media until the whole thing is done.
If this hypothetical child rapist is my child’s teacher, once he’s removed from the classroom, I as a parent can find out he’s guilty when he’s actually found guilty. Then I can start talking to my kid to see if she was a victim and if we need to get the kiddo into counseling, press charges ourselves, or what.
But you know…I’d be pretty happy if all “alleged” news reports were held until an actual guilty verdict came in, no matter what the crime. I guess that’s why I don’t get Twitter; I don’t need my “news” until it’s actually accurate.
How about this, why is Greg Kelly so important that this is the 3rd or 4th thread on him? What little I’ve gleaned about the case is that he’s the son of some semi-important muckety-muck somewhere and she’s the daughter of an equally semi-important muckety-muck.
Is that really all there is to this?
Ask the OP. He’s the one starting them.
Not that he’ll ever come back and answer. It seems he rarely does.
I would, yes, and this is a crude appeal to emotion, not an actual argument.
I think this might actually be too much information, but I’m a paranoid man.
If you think news on TV and the papers is accurate, I got some false balance and hype to sell you.
Yes. Though if I was sure my child was raped by his gym teacher, the gym teacher’s name would shortly be listed in the newspapers in the obituary section.
If your child’s friend said that Mr. Muscles was fondling her, would you be Ok with being in the dark while the investigation went on for months?
That’s getting out there in terms of possible scenarios, but in general yes. And I’ll remind you that the alleged victim in the case being discussed is not a minor, and alleged perpetrator doesn’t hold a position of authority of the alleged victim.
Your statements seem to be saying that accusers never lie, and the accused is always guilty. You should consider what happen to someone falsely accused of rape. And note that rarely does a false accuser suffer any consequences. If you want to be fair, both sides deserve the same level of protection.
I can see different sides.
First it’s unfair to compare this with a child abuse case. And it’s also unfair to compare it with a predator type case. This is not a matter of a serial rapist jumping out at people at random.
This is a case of acquaintance or date rape. This doesn’t mean it’s not rape, but it’s not the same thing. The same way if a stranger robs you or your kid steals money from you. The end result is you have no money but the crimes are somewhat different in the feel of them.
So if a child were involved or it was a matter of public safety that’s one thing.
Second, this guy is famous. It’s not fair but famous people do have less expectation of privacy. The more famous, the less expectation you have. And in a way it’s fair. Famous people are all too happy to receive the benefits of being famous, the money, the privileges (like getting preference in clubs and restaurants etc) so they are going to have to take the problems that come with it too.
I would be more apt to agree not releasing the guy’s name if he wasn’t famous.
Unfortunately a lot of people are delusional and there are usually people that are willing to back those delusions. Anyone remember Tawana Brawley?
Didn’t this whole story just start a few days ago? Is it already known that it was a false accusation or is that just conjecture by the OP?
Conjecture by the OP, and the media as well.
Oh, no, for most things, I don’t think they’re accurate. But they do tend to get stories right when they’re things like, “At 3:05 today, Mr. Smith was/was not found guilty of _______ in a court of law and sentenced to ______”.
I’d be a happy happy girl if the “news” was reserved for factual information on events that had actually occurred, rather than “conjecture”, “speculation” and “analysis” that we see now. All that other stuff is fine, I guess, but I don’t think it has a place on the nightly news. Give it it’s own timeslot, but still…keep names out of the spotlight until they’re actually found guilty.
I have no idea if this guy the OP’s on about is guilty or not, mind you. I’ve not kept up with the case, I don’t know who the guy is, for all I know he’s an asshole. But for all I know, he’s not guilty of rape. Yet.
Since when? Usually it’s the accused man who is automatically assumed to be guilty, before trial and even if they are found not guilty in court. This isn’t the 1950s.
The usual response to that is “false accusations almost never happen”, or “it’s no big deal”.
Are you serious? False accusations of rape occur more frequently than other crimes. This isn’t based on conviction rate, but actual confessions by false accusers. And no big deal? I know two men who were falsely accused of rape, and their lives have been seriously damaged. Both of them are on the secret list of sex offenders that Jeannie Pirro maintained indepently of the list compiled based on judicial action. Both these men had their lives turned upside down, incurred substantial legal costs, and one of them spent several years in jail until his accuser confessed to fabricating the claim. And the accusers? Neither suffered any perceptible harm as a result of their crimes.
I think you need to reread what Der Trihs wrote. You seem to actually be agreeing with each other.
You both seem to believe:
False accusations happen.
The accused (95% of the time the male) gets dragged through the muck and even after being found not guilty is often simply not believed or trusted.
Numbers two and three could be seen as motivation for number four, so they are quite relevant.
Or don’t the authorities bother with looking into motives anymore?
Whoops. Didn’t read carefully. Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry Trihs.
Cite?
I’ve always been told it’s the same rate as other violent crimes.