|
|
|
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=72329§ion=SPORTS&subsection=SPORTS&year=2003&month=12&day=19
"To most of us, she's a faceless stranger who hasn't said a word, yet
we know every intimate detail about her life," said Dawn Foor,
supervisor of Orange County Sexual Assault Victims Services.
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one who
committed the crime."
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=72329§ion=SPORTS&subsection=SPORTS&year=2003&month=12&day=19
"The victim is not the one who
committed the crime."
Feminist definition: "victim," --> n. a woman
|
| |
| |
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=72329§ion=SPORTS&sub
section=SPORTS&year=2003&month=12&day=19
"To most of us, she's a faceless stranger who hasn't said a word, yet
we know every intimate detail about her life," said Dawn Foor,
supervisor of Orange County Sexual Assault Victims Services.
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one who
committed the crime."
.... except when she is -- which is about eight percent of the time.
Katelyn got caught...
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
Feminist definition: "victim," --> n. a woman
And "woman", --> n. a victim.
|
| |
| |
I hate people like that....she doesn't even know who the victim is yet but
she makes it seem like Kobe is guilty.
"The victim is not the one who committed the crime." She isn't?????? How
does she know? Last time I checked and accusation of rape is still just
that ......and accusation.
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=72329§ion=SPORTS&sub
section=SPORTS&year=2003&month=12&day=19
"To most of us, she's a faceless stranger who hasn't said a word, yet
we know every intimate detail about her life," said Dawn Foor,
supervisor of Orange County Sexual Assault Victims Services.
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one who
committed the crime."
|
| |
| |
In article <OSFEb.3665$XF6.84404@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
... except when she is -- which is about eight percent of the time.
Katelyn got caught...
Suddenly guilty without a trial is ok, eh Snyder?
|
| |
| |
Agent Wheelz wrote:
I hate people like that....she doesn't even know who the victim is yet but
she makes it seem like Kobe is guilty.
"The victim is not the one who committed the crime." She isn't?????? How
does she know? Last time I checked and accusation of rape is still just
that ......and accusation.
Which would make Kobe the victim, and Katelyn the one who
committed a crime (false police report), and therefore the
statement that "the victim is not the one who committed
the crime" would still be true and correct.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2003 07:52:16 -0800, s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8)
wrote:
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=72329§ion=SPORTS&subsection=SPORTS&year=2003&month=12&day=19
"To most of us, she's a faceless stranger who hasn't said a word, yet
we know every intimate detail about her life," said Dawn Foor,
supervisor of Orange County Sexual Assault Victims Services.
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one who
committed the crime."
This case will no doubt cause some rape victims not to come forward.
It's a shame too. Of course at this point it seems like it's any ones
guess at who the perp and who the victim is in this case, but one
thing is for sure. The media hasn't helped one bit.
MAybe we should do like New Zealand does and not identify either one
until after trial. Pros and cons I know, but this has gotten out of
control.
--
Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
I hate people like that....she doesn't even know who the victim is yet but
she makes it seem like Kobe is guilty.
"The victim is not the one who committed the crime." She isn't?????? How
does she know? Last time I checked and accusation of rape is still just
that ......and accusation.
And false accusation, while rarely punished, is still a crime.
Whereas adultery, in the US at least, is not.
|
| |
| |
In article <OSFEb.3665$XF6.84404@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Suddenly guilty without a trial is ok, eh Snyder?
One good turn deserves another...
|
| |
| |
In article <5pJEb.3736$XF6.85120@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
And false accusation, while rarely punished, is still a crime.
Whereas adultery, in the US at least, is not.
There is a criminal case underway in Virginia as we speak.
|
| |
| |
In article <IqJEb.3737$XF6.85145@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
One good turn deserves another...
Who here has said that Bryant is guilty? I could have missed a post
or two, but as far as I can remember, you're out on this limb by
yourself.
|
| |
| |
In article <5pJEb.3736$XF6.85120@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
There is a criminal case underway in Virginia as we speak.
Let me take a wild guess: it's a man who is being prosecuted, correct?
|
| |
| |
In article <5pJEb.3736$XF6.85120@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
There is a criminal case underway in Virginia as we speak
OK, I have to back off on that one. I'll regroup and say that
false accusation is RIGHTLY a crime, whereas adultery is
foolishly and anachronistically still a crime in states where
legislators have not had the balls to do the right thing and repeal
the puritanical laws of past centuries.
|
| |
| |
In article <IqJEb.3737$XF6.85145@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Who here has said that Bryant is guilty?
Lots of people, but we need not go into that. My reply was not
directed to anyone here, it was directed to the author of the statement
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one
who committed the crime". That statement clearly reflects the
presumption that Bryant is guilty and Faber is "the victim".
|
| |
| |
Let me take a wild guess: it's a man who is being prosecuted, correct?
You must be psychic! ;-)
|
| |
| |
Agent Wheelz wrote:
Which would make Kobe the victim, and Katelyn the one who
committed a crime (false police report), and therefore the
statement that "the victim is not the one who committed
the crime" would still be true and correct.
Although that statement might be technically correct, it is NOT the spirit
or the tone of what she was trying to say. It is obvious that she was
talking about Katelyn.
This is what was posted;
"To most of us, she's a faceless stranger who hasn't said a word, yet
we know every intimate detail about her life," said Dawn Foor,
supervisor of Orange County Sexual Assault Victims Services.
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one who
committed the crime."
Kobe is not a she...he's a man...so Dawn Foor was indeed referring to
Katelyn the so called victim, and Kobe is the so called rapist. The other
poster was correct in saying Dawn says Kobe is guilty, even before his
trial.
P Diddy
Not at University of California
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
In article <fuLEb.3755$XF6.85766@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Lots of people, but we need not go into that. My reply was not
directed to anyone here, it was directed to the author of the statement
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one
who committed the crime". That statement clearly reflects the
presumption that Bryant is guilty and Faber is "the victim".
Fair enough. Still, two wrongs don't make a right.
|
| |
| |
In article <HuLEb.3756$XF6.85865@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
You must be psychic! ;-)
It's worse than that! The complaint was filed by the woman with whom
he was committing adultery!
|
| |
| |
In article <HuLEb.3756$XF6.85865@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
It's worse than that! The complaint was filed by the woman with whom
he was committing adultery!
What......a........#@&@
. Is she like a Quaker or something?
Ante up the links!
|
| |
| |
In article <fuLEb.3755$XF6.85766@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Fair enough. Still, two wrongs don't make a right
And a person who criticizes one side and not the other
is not in a position to judge.
|
| |
| |
In article <HuLEb.3756$XF6.85865@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
It's worse than that! The complaint was filed by the woman with whom
he was committing adultery!
Yep, that's pretty funny -- if there was any justice,
she'd be charged with adultery herself.
Extra credit: how many people have been executed for adultery in
the united states, including the pre-revolution colonies?
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=72329§ion=SPORTS&subsection=SPORTS&year=2003&month=12&day=19
"To most of us, she's a faceless stranger who hasn't said a word, yet
we know every intimate detail about her life," said Dawn Foor,
supervisor of Orange County Sexual Assault Victims Services.
"It's appalling, and what she's going through makes other victims
absolutely reluctant to come forward. The victim is not the one who
committed the crime."
What's with these idiots and misusung the term victim? Did I miss a
conviction somewhere?
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmcollard@yahoo.com
"Hangovers are the body's way of telling us we didn't drink enough to
still be drunk when we woke up the next day."
-- Tidewater Joe
|
| |
| |
Larry Coon wrote:
Agent Wheelz wrote:
Which would make Kobe the victim, and Katelyn the one who
committed a crime (false police report), and therefore the
statement that "the victim is not the one who committed
the crime" would still be true and correct.
No, consider the source, that would make her "a victim of a guy who got
away with it" in her eyes.
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmcollard@yahoo.com
"Hangovers are the body's way of telling us we didn't drink enough to
still be drunk when we woke up the next day."
-- Tidewater Joe
|
| |
| |
P Diddy wrote:
Although that statement might be technically correct, it is NOT the spirit
or the tone of what she was trying to say.
(rest snipped)
I know, I know. I was just commenting (a little too
obliquely, apparently) at the irony of her statement
still being true even when interpreted in a way she
certainly did not intend.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
P Diddy wrote:
(rest snipped)
I know, I know. I was just commenting (a little too
obliquely, apparently) at the irony of her statement
still being true even when interpreted in a way she
certainly did not intend.
Larry Coon
University of California
Ok, I apologize then. I guess I am just a little salty because so many
people here have tried, convicted, and passed judgement on what Kobe's
sentence should be...all this and the man hasn't even gone to trial. People
here still refer to him as a rapist, but that hasn't been proven yet....some
people here are morons if they can't grasp the concept of innocent until
proven guilty.
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
In article <qLNEb.3922$XF6.86279@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
And a person who criticizes one side and not the other
is not in a position to judge.
Indeed.
|
| |
| |
In article <cONEb.3928$XF6.86278@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Yep, that's pretty funny -- if there was any justice,
she'd be charged with adultery herself.
Traditionally, it was only adultery if the woman was married.
Ownership thing, dontcha know.
|
| |
| |
In article <cONEb.3928$XF6.86278@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Traditionally, it was only adultery if the woman was married.
Ah, so you're saying Kobe Bryant did not commit adultery?
Ownership thing, dontcha know.
Feminist thing, you mean. Feminist science. Heard all about it.
Facts are irrelevant. "Reasonable woman" standard, and all that...
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
What's with these idiots and misusung the term victim? Did I miss a
conviction somewhere?
Yes, but not in the sense of the word you're thinking of...
|
| |
| |
Michael Snyder wrote:
Ah, so you're saying Kobe Bryant did not commit adultery?
Feminist thing, you mean. Feminist science. Heard all about it.
Facts are irrelevant. "Reasonable woman" standard, and all that...
But...but...but... Women have "a woman's way of knowing." They don't
need to be confused with facts. That is such patriarchal thinking. The
"facts" are whatever the woman *feels* them to be.
'-)
Bob
j
|
| |
| |
In article <kySEb.4128$XF6.87062@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Yep, that's pretty funny -- if there was any justice,
she'd be charged with adultery herself.
Traditionally, it was only adultery if the woman was married.
Ah, so you're saying Kobe Bryant did not commit adultery?
Not by the traditional definition.
Ownership thing, dontcha know.
Feminist thing, you mean.
How so?
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <kySEb.4128$XF6.87062@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Yep, that's pretty funny -- if there was any justice,
she'd be charged with adultery herself.
Traditionally, it was only adultery if the woman was married.
Not by the traditional definition.
I'd be interested in a source for this "traditional definition".
AFAIK, adultery by men has always been recognized by American law.
In fact one James Britton, a man, was hung for adultery in
Massachusetts in March of 1643, over 400 years ago.
Ownership thing, dontcha know.
Feminist thing, you mean.
How so?
Men have never "owned" women in North America.
You would have to go back 1000 years or more to
show any evidence at all that they ever did in Europe.
The concept of men "owning" women is just another
feminist bugaboo.
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote:
On 19 Dec 2003 07:52:16 -0800, s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8)
wrote:
This case will no doubt cause some rape victims not to come forward.
Perhaps it will also cause some non-rape-victims to think twice
about making false accusations.
It's a shame too.
Perhaps. But if the number of false accusations averted
is greater than the number of actual rapes that go unreported,
would you be willing to call it a net gain?
Of course at this point it seems like it's any ones
guess at who the perp and who the victim is in this case, but one
thing is for sure. The media hasn't helped one bit.
Not on either side -- they haven't helped by attacking the accuser,
and they didn't help by naming and attacking the accused.
MAybe we should do like New Zealand does and not identify either one
until after trial. Pros and cons I know, but this has gotten out of
control.
Hey, it sounds like we actually agree on something!
|
| |
| |
In article <bs7nu0$2j8$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
tjab wrote:
I'd be interested in a source for this "traditional definition".
AFAIK, adultery by men has always been recognized by American law.
In fact one James Britton, a man, was hung for adultery in
Massachusetts in March of 1643, over 400 years ago.
Mary Latham, who was executed alongside him, was married, so this
does absolutely nothing to prove your point.
As for a source for the traditional definition:
"Under the Roman law and the Jewish law, to constitute criminal
adultery, the woman must be the wife of another. In certain states
of the United States, adultery is by statute made a crime for both
parties, whether married or not; in other states it is a crime
only on the part of the married person [e.g., Bryant]; and in still
others, only when one of the wrongdoers is a married woman."
Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1942)
I wonder what you think the rationale for that last category
is, Michael.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:22:49 -0800, Michael Snyder
<msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote:
Perhaps it will also cause some non-rape-victims to think twice
about making false accusations.
Perhaps. But if the number of false accusations averted
is greater than the number of actual rapes that go unreported,
would you be willing to call it a net gain?
you didn't ask me but i'm answering anyway... :-)
That's an amazing sum to have to consider... i'd need to know whether
the false accusations came to anything to continue... assuming that
they didn't... meaning that nobody was found guilty, then no... i
don't think it's worth it... i'd think that the rapists going free to
rape again was worse... but hell it's a close thing
Ann
Not on either side -- they haven't helped by attacking the accuser,
and they didn't help by naming and attacking the accused.
Hey, it sounds like we actually agree on something!
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:22:49 -0800, Michael Snyder
<msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
you didn't ask me but i'm answering anyway... :-)
That's an amazing sum to have to consider... i'd need to know whether
the false accusations came to anything to continue... assuming that
they didn't... meaning that nobody was found guilty, then no... i
don't think it's worth it... i'd think that the rapists going free to
rape again was worse... but hell it's a close thing
I don't know if your assumption's good -- some number of
innocent men do go to jail for rape. Here's about 138 of 'em,
for instance: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
Somewhere I heard that it was better for 100 guilty men
to go free than for one innocent one to go to jail...
|
| |
| |
In article <bs7nu0$2j8$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Mary Latham, who was executed alongside him, was married, so this
does absolutely nothing to prove your point.
As for a source for the traditional definition:
"Under the Roman law and the Jewish law, to constitute criminal
adultery, the woman must be the wife of another.
I see, so by "traditional" you meant 2000 years ago.
I thought you were talking about something actually
relevant to those of us alive today, or our grandparents,
or at least ancestors that we could name...
In certain states
of the United States, adultery is by statute made a crime for both
parties, whether married or not; in other states it is a crime
only on the p | | |
