|
|
|
http://www.speakoutvail.com/story2.shtml
Opinion By Michael Cacioppo - DENVER – Former Denver District
Attorney Norm Early, an National Broadcasting Company (NBC) analyst,
told a group of interested parties including reporters, rape victim
advocates and defense attorneys, that he was upset that the media was
calling alleged rapist Kobe Bryant's accuser an "alleged" victim.
Early insisted that she was a victim.
However, Steve Lipsher, a reporter for the Denver Post told Early that
if the press didn't call her an "alleged" victim, "we could get sued."
Lipsher insisted that he has always written that so-called victims
were "alleged," and that this wasn't just a recent trend in the
reporting on the Kobe Bryant case.
Early, along with current Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, and a
spokesperson for the Colorado Coalition of Sexual Assault, also spoke
in favor of continuing to "protect" the alleged victims name from
being reported.
"Why shouldn't we print her name," I asked the group, pleading with
them to give me fair reasons why Bryant's name should be widely
distributed, but the accuser’s name isn’t.
Nobody really gave a fair answer.
"By not printing her name, we have taken a side," I continued. And,
the side we have taken is to protect the accuser, and not the
defendant!
"The First Amendment says that the Freedom of the Press shall not be
infringed," I continued.
Infringing on the press is exactly what the Eagle County judges did
when they requested we not print the accuser's name, under the threat
that we would not be allowed in the courtroom again to cover the case.
Certain internet sites have already reported her name. Why hasn't the
so-called "main-stream media" done so?
Our job is to report, not protect, I told them.
Rape victim advocates could care less whether defendants get a fair
trial. For example, they believe that the accuser's medical records
should not be allowed into evidence, even if it was relevant as to
whether Bryant might be innocent, and whether the microscopic vaginal
tears could have been caused by sex with one or two other partners of
the accuser, immediately before or after having sex with Bryant.
Bryant might be falsely accused, but rape victim advocates don't want
a jury to consider that!
Last week, Speakout! asked why shouldn't we print the accuser's name,
in fairness to Bryant? Someone said to me, "Mike, you've got a
daughter. Would you want her name printed if she accused someone of
rape?"
I responded, "Probably not. That is why Speakout! didn't print the
accuser's name early on, even though we had the name two or three days
after charges were filed."
However, after testimony from Doug Winters, the investigator in the
case, it now appears that Bryant may be falsely accused.
After all,as Winters said after his investigation, he "wondered
whether a rape occurred." And, after his specific testimony that the
accuser never told Bryant "no," and after his testimony that when the
accuser communicated with her hands for Bryant to stop, he stopped, we
have to wonder if Bryant is guilty.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www.speakoutvail.com/story2.shtml
Opinion By Michael Cacioppo - DENVER – Former Denver District
Attorney Norm Early, an National Broadcasting Company (NBC) analyst,
told a group of interested parties including reporters, rape victim
advocates and defense attorneys, that he was upset that the media was
calling alleged rapist Kobe Bryant's accuser an "alleged" victim.
Early insisted that she was a victim.
Villain would be more accurate. Even if everthing she said was true.
Bob
However, Steve Lipsher, a reporter for the Denver Post told Early that
if the press didn't call her an "alleged" victim, "we could get sued."
Lipsher insisted that he has always written that so-called victims
were "alleged," and that this wasn't just a recent trend in the
reporting on the Kobe Bryant case.
Early, along with current Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, and a
spokesperson for the Colorado Coalition of Sexual Assault, also spoke
in favor of continuing to "protect" the alleged victims name from
being reported.
"Why shouldn't we print her name," I asked the group, pleading with
them to give me fair reasons why Bryant's name should be widely
distributed, but the accuser’s name isn’t.
Nobody really gave a fair answer.
"By not printing her name, we have taken a side," I continued. And,
the side we have taken is to protect the accuser, and not the
defendant!
"The First Amendment says that the Freedom of the Press shall not be
infringed," I continued.
Infringing on the press is exactly what the Eagle County judges did
when they requested we not print the accuser's name, under the threat
that we would not be allowed in the courtroom again to cover the case.
Certain internet sites have already reported her name. Why hasn't the
so-called "main-stream media" done so?
Our job is to report, not protect, I told them.
Rape victim advocates could care less whether defendants get a fair
trial. For example, they believe that the accuser's medical records
should not be allowed into evidence, even if it was relevant as to
whether Bryant might be innocent, and whether the microscopic vaginal
tears could have been caused by sex with one or two other partners of
the accuser, immediately before or after having sex with Bryant.
Bryant might be falsely accused, but rape victim advocates don't want
a jury to consider that!
Last week, Speakout! asked why shouldn't we print the accuser's name,
in fairness to Bryant? Someone said to me, "Mike, you've got a
daughter. Would you want her name printed if she accused someone of
rape?"
I responded, "Probably not. That is why Speakout! didn't print the
accuser's name early on, even though we had the name two or three days
after charges were filed."
However, after testimony from Doug Winters, the investigator in the
case, it now appears that Bryant may be falsely accused.
After all,as Winters said after his investigation, he "wondered
whether a rape occurred." And, after his specific testimony that the
accuser never told Bryant "no," and after his testimony that when the
accuser communicated with her hands for Bryant to stop, he stopped, we
have to wonder if Bryant is guilty.
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www.speakoutvail.com/story2.shtml
Opinion By Michael Cacioppo - DENVER – Former Denver District
Attorney Norm Early, an National Broadcasting Company (NBC) analyst,
told a group of interested parties including reporters, rape victim
advocates and defense attorneys, that he was upset that the media was
calling alleged rapist Kobe Bryant's accuser an "alleged" victim.
He's mad at those who are being responsible...what an idiot.
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmcollard@yahoo.com
"I would've gone for 2" -- Carolina coach John Fox when asked what he
thought of Justin Timberlake exposing Janet Jackson's breast
|
| |
| |
He's a DA who obviously doesn't believe a man is innocent until proven
guilty. If she should be called a "victim", why even have a trial? Does he
still think she's a victim if it's proven the whole story was bull#@($?
http://www.speakoutvail.com/story2.shtml
Opinion By Michael Cacioppo - DENVER – Former Denver District
Attorney Norm Early, an National Broadcasting Company (NBC) analyst,
told a group of interested parties including reporters, rape victim
advocates and defense attorneys, that he was upset that the media was
calling alleged rapist Kobe Bryant's accuser an "alleged" victim.
Early insisted that she was a victim.
However, Steve Lipsher, a reporter for the Denver Post told Early that
if the press didn't call her an "alleged" victim, "we could get sued."
Lipsher insisted that he has always written that so-called victims
were "alleged," and that this wasn't just a recent trend in the
reporting on the Kobe Bryant case.
Early, along with current Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, and a
spokesperson for the Colorado Coalition of Sexual Assault, also spoke
in favor of continuing to "protect" the alleged victims name from
being reported.
"Why shouldn't we print her name," I asked the group, pleading with
them to give me fair reasons why Bryant's name should be widely
distributed, but the accuser’s name isn’t.
Nobody really gave a fair answer.
"By not printing her name, we have taken a side," I continued. And,
the side we have taken is to protect the accuser, and not the
defendant!
"The First Amendment says that the Freedom of the Press shall not be
infringed," I continued.
Infringing on the press is exactly what the Eagle County judges did
when they requested we not print the accuser's name, under the threat
that we would not be allowed in the courtroom again to cover the case.
Certain internet sites have already reported her name. Why hasn't the
so-called "main-stream media" done so?
Our job is to report, not protect, I told them.
Rape victim advocates could care less whether defendants get a fair
trial. For example, they believe that the accuser's medical records
should not be allowed into evidence, even if it was relevant as to
whether Bryant might be innocent, and whether the microscopic vaginal
tears could have been caused by sex with one or two other partners of
the accuser, immediately before or after having sex with Bryant.
Bryant might be falsely accused, but rape victim advocates don't want
a jury to consider that!
Last week, Speakout! asked why shouldn't we print the accuser's name,
in fairness to Bryant? Someone said to me, "Mike, you've got a
daughter. Would you want her name printed if she accused someone of
rape?"
I responded, "Probably not. That is why Speakout! didn't print the
accuser's name early on, even though we had the name two or three days
after charges were filed."
However, after testimony from Doug Winters, the investigator in the
case, it now appears that Bryant may be falsely accused.
After all,as Winters said after his investigation, he "wondered
whether a rape occurred." And, after his specific testimony that the
accuser never told Bryant "no," and after his testimony that when the
accuser communicated with her hands for Bryant to stop, he stopped, we
have to wonder if Bryant is guilty.
|
| |
| |
He's a DA who obviously doesn't believe a man is innocent until proven
guilty. If she should be called a "victim", why even have a trial? Does
he
still think she's a victim if it's proven the whole story was bull#@($?
When someone else reports a crime, a robbery, an assault, they aren't
referred to as the alleged victim.
td
|
| |
| |
he
When someone else reports a crime, a robbery, an assault, they aren't
referred to as the alleged victim.
Says who?
td
|
| |
| |
When someone else reports a crime, a robbery, an assault, they aren't
referred to as the alleged victim.
Ok, then you just raped me and I'm calling the police. I guess that means
I'm a victim.
|
| |
| |
"eichler4" <eichler4@comcast.net> wrote
Ok, then you just raped me and I'm calling the police. I guess that means
I'm a victim.
After making that sworn complaint, you certainly are.
The presumption that there has been a crime is inherent in the fact that the
complainant must swear that the charge is true/accurate.
Kobe has the presumption of innocence insofar as criminal punishment, but
that doesn't mitigate the accusers position as a victim- she's sworn to it
by oath- as opposed to Kobe who has already been caught in lies.
Chas
|
| |
| |
tinydancer wrote:
he
When someone else reports a crime, a robbery, an assault, they aren't
referred to as the alleged victim.
What are you reading, the District Attorney Times? The accused should
*always* referred by the qualifier "alleged," and if there is any
possibility that there was no crime committed (which certainly is the case
here), the victim should be as well. This is basic journalistic ethics,
it's not only a concept from the US Constitution.
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmcollard@yahoo.com
"I would've gone for 2" -- Carolina coach John Fox when asked what he
thought of Justin Timberlake exposing Janet Jackson's breast
|
| |
| |
"eichler4" <eichler4@comcast.net> wrote
After making that sworn complaint, you certainly are.
The presumption that there has been a crime is inherent in the fact that
the
complainant must swear that the charge is true/accurate.
Kobe has the presumption of innocence insofar as criminal punishment, but
that doesn't mitigate the accusers position as a victim- she's sworn to it
by oath- as opposed to Kobe who has already been caught in lies.
Chas
What oath? I am not a lawyer but that just doesn't sound right..
The cops don't force her to swear by any oath .. they have to accept her
word as the truth until the Court System goes through the whole process...
|
| |
| |
"1" <1@1.com> wrote
What oath?
You have to swear out a complaint- to make it in hazard of perjury if you're
lying. It's not just a casual note with groundless random accusations.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"1" <1@1.com> wrote
You have to swear out a complaint- to make it in hazard of perjury if
you're
lying. It's not just a casual note with groundless random accusations.
Waldo has posted so many times a woman who has done just what you said, and
guess what? She lied. So in those cases I guess they are just casual notes
with groundless random accusations.
|
| |
| |
Says who?
In the Wichita trial I never heard a single person refer to those people as
'alleged victims'.
td
|
| |
| |
I hope Kobe Bryant enjoys his time in state prison, because I think
he's allowed his fans to delude himself into believing that he's going
to be acquitted.
|
| |
| |
In the Wichita trial I never heard a single person refer to those people
as
'alleged victims'.
Until proven true in a court of law, *alleged* IS the proper word to use. I
don't know about the Wichita trial, but in court, the papers showed
*alleged* victim, and whoever reported on the proceedings, should have used
that word too, or figured out a way around it, but "never" should anyone be
called a victim until it is proven that they are in fact a victim.
td
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C3EDD6.29DD2950
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_002C_01C3EDD6.29DD2950"
------=_NextPart_001_002C_01C3EDD6.29DD2950
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I hope Kobe Bryant enjoys his time in state prison, because I think
he's allowed his fans to delude himself into believing that he's going
to be acquitted.
During the 1920s, Colorado had the largest and most influential Knights =
of the Ku Klux Klan following of any other state west of the Mississippi =
River. In the 1924 elections, the Klan gained control not only of state =
government with the election of Governor Morley, but also of many local =
governments.=20
http://ccpl.lib.co.us/KKK/KKK%20Essay.html=20
------=_NextPart_001_002C_01C3EDD6.29DD2950
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"cbreitel" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:charlesbreitel@yahoo.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>charlesbreitel@yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:74317df6.0402072246.577dcede@posting.google.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:74317df6.0402072246.577dcede@posting.google.com</FONT></A><=
FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> I hope Kobe Bryant enjoys his time =
in state=20
prison, because I think<BR>> he's allowed his fans to delude himself =
into=20
believing that he's going<BR>> to be acquitted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> During the =
1920s,=20
Colorado had the largest and most influential Knights of the Ku Klux =
Klan=20
following of any other state west of the Mississippi River. In the 1924=20
elections, the Klan gained control not only of state government with the =
election of Governor Morley, but also of many local governments. =
<BR></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://ccpl.lib.co.us/KKK/KKK%20Essay.html" =
target=3D_blank><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://ccpl.lib.co.us/KKK/KKK%20Essay.html</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_002C_01C3EDD6.29DD2950--
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C3EDD6.29DD2950
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="http---ccpl.lib.co.us-Images-KKKFerrisWheel.JPG.URL"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="http---ccpl.lib.co.us-Images-KKKFerrisWheel.JPG.URL"
[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://ccpl.lib.co.us/Images/KKKFerrisWheel.JPG
=00
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C3EDD6.29DD2950
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="http---ccpl.lib.co.us-Images-KKKFerrisWheel.JPG.URL"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="http---ccpl.lib.co.us-Images-KKKFerrisWheel.JPG.URL"
[InternetShortcut]
URL=3Dhttp://ccpl.lib.co.us/Images/KKKFerrisWheel.JPG
=00
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C3EDD6.29DD2950--
|
| |
| |
"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote
Waldo has posted so many times a woman who has done just what you said,
and
guess what? She lied. So in those cases I guess they are just casual notes
with groundless random accusations.
Actually, they're chargeable under perjury statutes.
See, that's the difference between a casual lie to police, like Kobe did,
and a sworn complaint subject to criminal penalties if willfully false.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"1" <1@1.com> wrote
During the 1920s, Colorado had the largest and most influential Knights of
the Ku Klux Klan following of any other state west of the Mississippi River.
In the 1924 elections, the Klan gained control not only of state government
with the election of Governor Morley, but also of many local governments.
http://ccpl.lib.co.us/KKK/KKK%20Essay.html
Interestingly, the Klan's focus here in Colorado wasn't blacks though. They
were against the plutocrats, whom they saw as being Jewish and Catholic
(business magnates and Spanish Land Grant owners).
Colorado had a long history of vigilance, and the Klan was seen as
comparable to any other Committee of Vigilance formed in the absence of law.
There were isolated incidents that could be seen as racist; Asians were
common targets of rhetoric, but little actual violence. There was some
activity against Eastern Europeans, and they ran the State Police and local
departments, so there was a different enforcement of law than against middle
class whites- but that's the same today, everywhere.
Today, Colorado is just as corrupt, but it's utterly egalitarian about it.
The black politicians, hispanic politicians and government administrators
are fully integrated in their operation of their self-interest.
Don't worry; rich and black works really well in Colorado- throw in
'sports', and you've got a weiner.
Chas
|
| |
| |
(In an effort to keep everyone reading this thread abreast of what's going
on. It was an argument about *alleged* victim and victim, and when the words
should be used. I decided to re-post what you snipped, it can get rather
confusing)
Eichler4 : Ok, then you just raped me and I'm calling the police. I guess
that means I'm a victim. (Eichler4 is being sarcastic)
Chas: After making that sworn complaint, you certainly are. The presumption
that there has been a crime is inherent in the fact that the complainant
must swear that the charge is true/accurate.Kobe has the presumption of
innocence insofar as criminal punishment, but that doesn't mitigate the
accusers position as a victim- she's sworn to it by oath- as opposed to Kobe
who has already been caught in lies.
1: What oath? I am not a lawyer but that just doesn't sound right. The cops
don't force her to swear by any oath .. they have to accept her word as the
truth until the Court System goes through the whole process...
Chas: You have to swear out a complaint- to make it in hazard of perjury if
you're lying. It's not just a casual note with groundless random
accusations.
Raqui: Waldo has posted so many times a woman who has done just what you
said, and guess what? She lied. So in those cases I guess they are just
casual notes
with groundless random accusations.
Chas: Actually, they're chargeable under perjury statutes. See, that's the
difference between a casual lie to police, like Kobe did, and a sworn
complaint subject to criminal penalties if willfully false.
Raqui now: So you saying this to say what? What does this have to do with
the cost of tea in China? We already know what can happen to women who lie
about being raped. That's what Waldo's posts are all about. I think you
tried to confuse the issue...cloud it with razzzle dazzle, but it didn't
work:)
|
| |
| |
I believe we are saying that 'once a complaintent swears out a statement of
a crime, they become the 'victim'. The perp is the 'alleged perp' until
and unless he is convicted or found to be not guilty of that crime.
td
(In an effort to keep everyone reading this thread abreast of what's going
on. It was an argument about *alleged* victim and victim, and when the
words
should be used. I decided to re-post what you snipped, it can get rather
confusing)
Eichler4 : Ok, then you just raped me and I'm calling the police. I guess
that means I'm a victim. (Eichler4 is being sarcastic)
Chas: After making that sworn complaint, you certainly are. The
presumption
that there has been a crime is inherent in the fact that the complainant
must swear that the charge is true/accurate.Kobe has the presumption of
innocence insofar as criminal punishment, but that doesn't mitigate the
accusers position as a victim- she's sworn to it by oath- as opposed to
Kobe
who has already been caught in lies.
1: What oath? I am not a lawyer but that just doesn't sound right. The
cops
don't force her to swear by any oath .. they have to accept her word as
the
truth until the Court System goes through the whole process...
Chas: You have to swear out a complaint- to make it in hazard of perjury
if
you're lying. It's not just a casual note with groundless random
accusations.
Raqui: Waldo has posted so many times a woman who has done just what you
said, and guess what? She lied. So in those cases I guess they are just
casual notes
with groundless random accusations.
Chas: Actually, they're chargeable under perjury statutes. See, that's
the
difference between a casual lie to police, like Kobe did, and a sworn
complaint subject to criminal penalties if willfully false.
Raqui now: So you saying this to say what? What does this have to do with
the cost of tea in China? We already know what can happen to women who lie
about being raped. That's what Waldo's posts are all about. I think you
tried to confuse the issue...cloud it with razzzle dazzle, but it didn't
work:)
|
| |
| |
I believe we are saying that 'once a complaintent swears out a statement
of
a crime, they become the 'victim'. The perp is the 'alleged perp' until
and unless he is convicted or found to be not guilty of that crime.
Ok...I'm not an expert on that issue, so I'll admit I don't know for
certain, but that doesn't *sound* fair to me. If the complaint is false,
then they are *not* a victim...they are a liar. Something doesn't seem right
about that. Look at the woman in the other thread who said she was raped
after the team wouldn't pay her for the sex. She was NOT a rape
victim..although she swore in a complaint she was.
td
words
presumption
Kobe
cops
the
if
the
|
| |
| |
"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote
Ok...I'm not an expert on that issue, so I'll admit I don't know for
certain, but that doesn't *sound* fair to me.
There are two assertions in place; the rape itself, and the perpetrator who
did it.
If the complaint is false,
then they are *not* a victim...they are a liar.
But if the complaint is true (rape), but the accused is not the perpetrator,
there's one scenario.
Another is if the event itself is a lie, as well as the false
identification, that's a double lie.
And, the lies, both of them, are actionable under criminal statute (whether
or not it's commonly applied).
And, it's completely possible that a legitimate complaint of rape, and a
legitimate identification of the perpetrator, not be sustainable in a
criminal court under standards of evidence/procedure.
Something doesn't seem right
about that. Look at the woman in the other thread who said she was raped
after the team wouldn't pay her for the sex. She was NOT a rape
victim..although she swore in a complaint she was.
Sure does give you a continuing insight into athletes though, doesn't it?
They were accused, after gang sex, with a whore, and bum-paying her the
promised money- that she's trying to earn for her husband and three kids
with the degradation of her body.
Gee; and you're worried about *their* feelings?
Like someone said; they're lucky she was so defenseless that she had to go
to the cops to try to enforce their agreement. Anybody but a
hooker/housewife would have had that guy with the razor.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote
There are two assertions in place; the rape itself, and the perpetrator
who
did it.
But if the complaint is true (rape), but the accused is not the
perpetrator,
there's one scenario.
Another is if the event itself is a lie, as well as the false
identification, that's a double lie.
And, the lies, both of them, are actionable under criminal statute
(whether
or not it's commonly applied).
And, it's completely possible that a legitimate complaint of rape, and a
legitimate identification of the perpetrator, not be sustainable in a
criminal court under standards of evidence/procedure.
Ok...I think I followed what you said...just not sure why you said it.
Sure does give you a continuing insight into athletes though, doesn't it?
Not really. Some young boys with healthy sex appetites met a woman who said
she'd @$#* 'em all for a grand. They got the pussy, and didn't pay. It
didn't have to be atheletes for that to happen....could have been any red
blooded boys.
They were accused, after gang sex, with a whore, and bum-paying her the
promised money- that she's trying to earn for her husband and three kids
with the degradation of her body.
Wait a minute...how do you know that's what the money was for? How you know
she was trying to get *high*, or money was for gambling? Why did money have
to be for hubby and kids?
Gee; and you're worried about *their* feelings?
Like someone said; they're lucky she was so defenseless that she had to go
to the cops to try to enforce their agreement. Anybody but a
hooker/housewife would have had that guy with the razor.
Read the story agan...there was more than one guy. She was outnumbered.
Chas
|
| |
| |
In article <2NvVb.26604$1O.13250@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
Not really. Some young boys with healthy sex appetites met a woman who said
she'd @$#* 'em all for a grand. They got the pussy, and didn't pay. It
didn't have to be atheletes for that to happen....could have been any red
blooded boys.
So in your view they're guilty of nothing?
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <2NvVb.26604$1O.13250@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
So in your view they're guilty of nothing?
They are guilty of failing to pay a whore for a commercial service.
Since the service provided is illegal it's not a "crime" not to pay.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
|
| |
| |
In article <2NvVb.26604$1O.13250@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
Not really. Some young boys with healthy sex appetites met a woman who
said
she'd @$#* 'em all for a grand. They got the pussy, and didn't pay. It
didn't have to be atheletes for that to happen....could have been any red
blooded boys.
So in your view they're guilty of nothing?
Lying...going back on their word...not paying a ho....certainly not rape. In
your view, what is SHE guilty of? See to me it would be prostitution, filing
fictitious police reports, attempted extortion...oh wait...that IS what
police charged her with. I hope she goes to jail.
|
| |
| |
In article <NBwVb.26930$1O.6894@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
wrote:
Not really. Some young boys with healthy sex appetites met a woman who
said
she'd @$#* 'em all for a grand. They got the pussy, and didn't pay. It
didn't have to be atheletes for that to happen....could have been any red
blooded boys.
Lying...going back on their word...not paying a ho....certainly not rape. In
your view, what is SHE guilty of? See to me it would be prostitution, filing
fictitious police reports, attempted extortion...oh wait...that IS what
police charged her with. I hope she goes to jail.
But a bunch of guys that make a thousand dollar deal and then renege
are just "young boys with a healthy sex appetite."
Better check your moral compass, Raqui. It seems to be spinning out
of control.
|
| |
| |
of
Ok...I'm not an expert on that issue, so I'll admit I don't know for
certain, but that doesn't *sound* fair to me. If the complaint is false,
then they are *not* a victim...they are a liar. Something doesn't seem
right
about that. Look at the woman in the other thread who said she was raped
after the team wouldn't pay her for the sex. She was NOT a rape
victim..although she swore in a complaint she was.
I didn't read whether she actually swore out a complaint or made an
allegation. I would imagine the punishment for actually swearing out a
complaint would be higher than simply making a false allegation. Either
way, their are legal penalties for doing so and they should be enforced.
Just because some women make false allegations or swear out false
complaints, doesn't mean all do, and doesn't mean all should be treated as
they do.
td
|
| |
| |
In article <NBwVb.26930$1O.6894@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
In article <2NvVb.26604$1O.13250@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
Not really. Some young boys with healthy sex appetites met a woman who
said
she'd @$#* 'em all for a grand. They got the pussy, and didn't pay. It
didn't have to be atheletes for that to happen....could have been any
red
blooded boys.
So in your view they're guilty of nothing?
Lying...going back on their word...not paying a ho....certainly not rape.
In
your view, what is SHE guilty of? See to me it would be prostitution,
filing
fictitious police reports, attempted extortion...oh wait...that IS what
police charged her with. I hope she goes to jail.
But a bunch of guys that make a thousand dollar deal and then renege
are just "young boys with a healthy sex appetite."
Better check your moral compass, Raqui. It seems to be spinning out
of control.
St John officials DID check the players moral compass, and expelled one, and
suspended others. Apparently you don't think that's enough. What else do YOU
think should be done to them?
|
| |
| |
right
I didn't read whether she actually swore out a complaint or made an
allegation.
Yeah she did. She did go to the police and say she was raped...which is why
they charged her with filing ficticious reports. She's out on 20 thousand
dollar bail. Now I'm not saying the boys shouldn't have some kind of
punishment thrown at them...but it's "street" justice that will take care of
them..."karma". No matter how much many here would like for it to be
different....prostitution is illegal, and you can't go to court to get a
legal remedy.
I would imagine the punishment for actually swearing out a
complaint would be higher than simply making a false allegation. Either
way, their are legal penalties for doing so and they should be enforced.
Just because some women make false allegations or swear out false
complaints, doesn't mean all do, and doesn't mean all should be treated as
they do.
I agree with that. Those that do should be dealt with. Men who rape should
be dealt with. It really is that simple. Sometimes people like to make a
mountain out of a molehill.
td
|
| |
| |
Yeah she did. She did go to the police and say she was raped...which is
why
they charged her with filing ficticious reports. She's out on 20 thousand
dollar bail. Now I'm not saying the boys shouldn't have some kind of
punishment thrown at them...but it's "street" justice that will take care
of
them..."karma". No matter how much many here would like for it to be
different....prostitution is illegal, and you can't go to court to get a
legal remedy.
I would imagine the punishment for actually swearing out a
I agree with that. Those that do should be dealt with. Men who rape should
be dealt with. It really is that simple. Sometimes people like to make a
mountain out of a molehill.
Except I haven't seen anyone here posting vulgar, disgusting names that
bryant is being called. Most of us, myself included, began posting
rebuttals *because* of the way the victim in this particular case has been
treated. None of us know what the evidence is yet, but this victim has been
called everything from a slut to a whore. By the way, I have no sympathy
for women who file false rape allegations, they should be prosecuted to the | | |
