|
|
|
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?search=filter
Prosecutors unleashed a vigorous defense of Colorado's rape- shield
law in response to a request by Kobe Bryant's lawyers that the statute
be declared unconstitutional.
Prosecutor Dana Easter said Colorado courts have consistently upheld
the law, calling it an effort to correct a former practice of trial
courts that allowed "wide latitude in cross-examining" rape victims
about their prior sexual conduct.
This practice, wrote one of the Colorado courts, was based on "little
or no analysis" of the "logical connection" between the victim's
credibility and her prior sexual conduct, Easter noted.
Easter said Colorado courts, in upholding the rape-shield law, have
held that cross-examinations digging into a woman's sexual history
have served "only to put her on trial instead of the defendant."
Anpeytu Raben, director of the Sexual Assault Survivors of Greeley,
said the idea behind the rape-shield law is to encourage
sexual-assault victims to come forward. Exposing an accuser's sexual
history - especially in a high-profile case such as the one against
Bryant - only adds to the already low percentage of cases reported to
authorities, she said.
"The whole (court) experience is so traumatizing," Raben said. "We
have people ... asking us in the first half-hour, 'Am I going to have
to go to court?' They're just sure they're going to get turned inside
out through that process."
Raben also disputed the defense argument that the rape-shield law is
unfair.
"Incidence of false reporting is extremely low," she said. Victims
"don't generally make up stories of sexual assault."
Meanwhile, in a separate motion, the Resource Center of Eagle County,
where the 19-year-old was counseled, launched a blistering attack on
the media and the Bryant defense team, claiming their actions and
comments have demeaned Bryant's accuser.
It said the defense team and media are attempting either to obtain
records of or hear evidence about the interaction between a resource
advocate and the accuser, and about any notes or records that may have
been made of that interaction. But those conversations and records are
absolutely privileged under Colorado law, the resource center said.
"Not only are her name, home and e-mail addresses and phone number
widely available on the Internet, but various photographs purporting
to be her are 'passed among the sites like a dirty postcard,"' the
resource center said. "Defense counsel refers to the alleged victim as
the 'accuser,' a practice that has now been adopted by the media all
over the country. The defendant has attempted to offer evidence about
the alleged victim's prior medical history to demonstrate 'the
accuser's motive, scheme, plan and modus operandi,' terms commonly
used to describe the behavior of criminals, not alleged victims," the
resource center said.
In another motion, lawyers for the woman asked that all pretrial
issues related to her medical records be conducted in the judge's
chambers, not in public.
"This is one of those things that is not going to satisfy all three
sides of the triangle here," he said. "If Ruckriegle says this is
going to be completely candid and open, the victim is not going to
like it, and the defendant is not going to like it. If he says we're
going to do it in secret, the media is not going to like it."
|
| |
| |
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?searc
h=filter
"The whole (court) experience is so traumatizing," Raben said. "We
have people ... asking us in the first half-hour, 'Am I going to have
to go to court?' They're just sure they're going to get turned inside
out through that process."
It's, umm, kinda traumatizing for the accused too.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message news:<6bd12cd6.0402132121.105e3e37@posting.google.com>...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?search=filter
Prosecutors unleashed a vigorous defense of Colorado's rape- shield
law in response to a request by Kobe Bryant's lawyers that the statute
be declared unconstitutional.
Yeah, what a vigorous defense. Just alot of hand waving,
knee-jerking, and use of all the old tired feminist cliches.
[...]
Easter said Colorado courts, in upholding the rape-shield law, have
held that cross-examinations digging into a woman's sexual history
have served "only to put her on trial instead of the defendant."
Well you knew this was coming. "Prosecutor Jaqueline Boot said,
'Golly, it's just so hard to jail men when we let them put on a
defense. And they only put the victims on trial when they defend
themselves. The trials themselves are a travesty, because they
insinuate that the victims may not be telling the truth. They should
thus be bypassed altogether, and we should proceed straight to
sentencing based on the lone extended finger of the victim.'"
Hey Jackboot, the _accuser_ is not on trial, because she won't go to
prison pending the outcome of the trial. Get it? The defense does
put her credibility on trial, because their client can be convicted
based on her word alone. The only real defense they have is to put
her credibility on trial. Do you get _that_?
Anpeytu Raben, director of the Sexual Assault Survivors of Greeley,
said the idea behind the rape-shield law is to encourage
sexual-assault victims to come forward.
Whether they've been assaulted or not.
Exposing an accuser's sexual
history - especially in a high-profile case such as the one against
Bryant - only adds to the already low percentage of cases reported to
authorities, she said.
How can one calculate the percentage of cases reported? If they
aren't reported, how do you know they happened? Do you determine this
percentage by comparing the number of rape reports to the number of
rapes that you detect telepathically?
Like I said, this so-called "vigorous defense" is just handwaving and
knee-jerking. There's no constitutional law discussed here.
"The whole (court) experience is so traumatizing," Raben said. "We
Well people will ask you a few tough questions when you try to put
someone in jail for four years. But, as one would expect, Jaqueline
Boot would give women the right to summarily jail any man with one
point of the finger. They'd want some time in the courtroom, just to
make it look like due process, but they'd serve her mocha lattes and
scones the entire time.
have people ... asking us in the first half-hour, 'Am I going to have
to go to court?' They're just sure they're going to get turned inside
out through that process."
Leave it to the feminist jackboots to equate an uncomfortable hour on
the stand with four years in prison. "She's being raped all over
again!" they cry.
Can women tolerate being doubted in any way, or do they insist on
being infallible?
Raben also disputed the defense argument that the rape-shield law is
unfair.
Yeah right. Here's how she "disputed" it. How thoroughly
unimpressive.
"Incidence of false reporting is extremely low," she said. Victims
"don't generally make up stories of sexual assault."
And your justification for that statement would be ..... what?
Nothing, of course. I keep forgetting that women shouldn't have to
justify their statements. Prompting them to do so is either raping
them or putting them on trial. I forget which.
Meanwhile, in a separate motion, the Resource Center of Eagle County,
where the 19-year-old was counseled, launched a blistering attack on
the media
Have they been burning magazines and newspapers again? What is the
media supposed to report? "In the news, Kobe Bryant raped a woman in
Eagle County. He is free on bail pending a preliminary hearing, but
there is no question he raped her. The trial is perfunctory. He
definitely raped her. He did nothing other than rape her. She was
raped, and it was by Kobe Bryant. It was nothing other than a rape
committed by Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant raped her. Back to you, Bob."
Would this be more to the liking of the Hersource Center of Eagle
County?
and the Bryant defense team, claiming their actions and
comments have demeaned Bryant's accuser.
What is the Bryant defense team supposed to do? "OK, there there.
Now we know the accuser is a completely upstanding citizen of
unquestionable character, but we do think there's a mild possibility
that our client may possibly be innocent. NOT TO QUESTION THE WOMAN,
mind you. We'd never be so insensitive. But we do think there is
some possibility that he may possibly not have committed a crime, and
there is a slight chance that he's innocent. Sorry to put the victim
on trial. The defense rests."
It said the defense team and media are attempting either to obtain
records of or hear evidence about the interaction between a resource
advocate and the accuser, and about any notes or records that may have
been made of that interaction. But those conversations and records are
absolutely privileged under Colorado law, the resource center said.
What does the actual law say? Should we just take the Hersource
Center's word for it?
"Not only are her name, home and e-mail addresses and phone number
widely available on the Internet, but various photographs purporting
to be her are 'passed among the sites like a dirty postcard,"' the
Well, only one thing to do. Repeal the First Amendment, and disperse
a force of secret police throughout the country.
resource center said. "Defense counsel refers to the alleged victim as
the 'accuser,' a practice that has now been adopted by the media all
over the country.
She is an accuser unless and until a court finds Bryant guilty, which
hasn't happened. Glad I could educate you.
The defendant has attempted to offer evidence about
the alleged victim's prior medical history to demonstrate 'the
accuser's motive, scheme, plan and modus operandi,'
And to counteract the prosecution's claim that she has injuries
stemming from the alleged rape. Next.
terms commonly
used to describe the behavior of criminals, not alleged victims," the
resource center said.
Send them a thesaurus. Next.
In another motion, lawyers for the woman asked that all pretrial
issues related to her medical records be conducted in the judge's
chambers, not in public.
Well of course. How can she be a Secret Accuser of the Feminist
Police State if the man she accuses is given a public trial?
[...]
|
| |
| |
In article <q7kXb.1337$_3.19345@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?searc
h=filter
It's, umm, kinda traumatizing for the accused too.
Bryant doesn't seem especially traumatized to me.
|
| |
| |
In article <q7kXb.1337$_3.19345@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Bryant doesn't seem especially traumatized to me.
Oh wow...most of us didn't know you knew Bryant personally...he talked about
his innermost feelings to you.You have to let us know these things, you have
such an advantage.
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:c0lq57$t45@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
In article <q7kXb.1337$_3.19345@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Bryant doesn't seem especially traumatized to me.
You must not be watching very carefully
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?se
arch=filter
Prosecutors unleashed a vigorous defense of Colorado's rape- shield
law in response to a request by Kobe Bryant's lawyers that the statute
be declared unconstitutional.
When will these idiots with college degrees wake up?
It is not about what an accuser has or has not done in the past, it is about
the fact that a criminal charge has been made.
The accuser is the victim. The accuser is the one who is NOT on trial.
What these jackasses want to do is to taint the media and possible jury
members to show that the accuser had a history of such behavior.
If that's the case, then the law should allow such evidence.
But the evidence should not be handed to the media.
A woman is walking down a street and is grabbed by two men who proceed to
rape her.
During the trial it is learned the woman has a history of prostitution even
though now she's a full fledged attorney.
The two men are set free because the woman was known to have had sex for
hire in the past?
Had the past criminal record not been allowed to be spoken of, as it should
be, the two men would be sitting in a jail cell for a long time.
It is the act of the moment that is on trial, not previous history.
What if the defense finds a dozen women who are willing to testify that
Bryant had sex with them in a motel room even while he was married?
Would this not establish reasonable grounds to believe that Bryant is not
exactly a choir boy?
The question is, who made the initial contact and for what reason?
Did little miss nightingale go calling on the famed person who had 3 body
guards with him?
Or did Bryant request her presence?
Did she make an offer of sex? Or did Bryant?
And just where were the 3 bodyguards all this time? Did either of them
engage with the little #@&@
?
When things go sour, perhaps she's not paid enough, or maybe Bryant wants
more than she's willing to give, she decides to cry rape.
If it is found Bryant is not guilty of the charges, will miss nightingale be
charged with filing false reports and charges?
This is precisely why we have laws, courts, judges, and juries.
|
| |
| |
o, Greg. When do you plan on going into practice to take this stuff
on, yourself, instead of working for firms that promote it?
greg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message news:<ac57efe0.0402140546.580ad855@posting.google.com>...
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message news:<6bd12cd6.0402132121.105e3e37@posting.google.com>...
Yeah, what a vigorous defense. Just alot of hand waving,
knee-jerking, and use of all the old tired feminist cliches.
[...]
Well you knew this was coming. "Prosecutor Jaqueline Boot said,
'Golly, it's just so hard to jail men when we let them put on a
defense. And they only put the victims on trial when they defend
themselves. The trials themselves are a travesty, because they
insinuate that the victims may not be telling the truth. They should
thus be bypassed altogether, and we should proceed straight to
sentencing based on the lone extended finger of the victim.'"
Hey Jackboot, the _accuser_ is not on trial, because she won't go to
prison pending the outcome of the trial. Get it? The defense does
put her credibility on trial, because their client can be convicted
based on her word alone. The only real defense they have is to put
her credibility on trial. Do you get _that_?
Whether they've been assaulted or not.
How can one calculate the percentage of cases reported? If they
aren't reported, how do you know they happened? Do you determine this
percentage by comparing the number of rape reports to the number of
rapes that you detect telepathically?
Like I said, this so-called "vigorous defense" is just handwaving and
knee-jerking. There's no constitutional law discussed here.
Well people will ask you a few tough questions when you try to put
someone in jail for four years. But, as one would expect, Jaqueline
Boot would give women the right to summarily jail any man with one
point of the finger. They'd want some time in the courtroom, just to
make it look like due process, but they'd serve her mocha lattes and
scones the entire time.
Leave it to the feminist jackboots to equate an uncomfortable hour on
the stand with four years in prison. "She's being raped all over
again!" they cry.
Can women tolerate being doubted in any way, or do they insist on
being infallible?
Yeah right. Here's how she "disputed" it. How thoroughly
unimpressive.
And your justification for that statement would be ..... what?
Nothing, of course. I keep forgetting that women shouldn't have to
justify their statements. Prompting them to do so is either raping
them or putting them on trial. I forget which.
Have they been burning magazines and newspapers again? What is the
media supposed to report? "In the news, Kobe Bryant raped a woman in
Eagle County. He is free on bail pending a preliminary hearing, but
there is no question he raped her. The trial is perfunctory. He
definitely raped her. He did nothing other than rape her. She was
raped, and it was by Kobe Bryant. It was nothing other than a rape
committed by Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant raped her. Back to you, Bob."
Would this be more to the liking of the Hersource Center of Eagle
County?
What is the Bryant defense team supposed to do? "OK, there there.
Now we know the accuser is a completely upstanding citizen of
unquestionable character, but we do think there's a mild possibility
that our client may possibly be innocent. NOT TO QUESTION THE WOMAN,
mind you. We'd never be so insensitive. But we do think there is
some possibility that he may possibly not have committed a crime, and
there is a slight chance that he's innocent. Sorry to put the victim
on trial. The defense rests."
What does the actual law say? Should we just take the Hersource
Center's word for it?
Well, only one thing to do. Repeal the First Amendment, and disperse
a force of secret police throughout the country.
She is an accuser unless and until a court finds Bryant guilty, which
hasn't happened. Glad I could educate you.
And to counteract the prosecution's claim that she has injuries
stemming from the alleged rape. Next.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
When will these idiots with college degrees wake up?
Oh...wow...excuse me..I overslept...I'm up now.
It is not about what an accuser has or has not done in the past, it is
about
the fact that a criminal charge has been made.
The accuser is the victim.
You mean *alleged* victim.
The accuser is the one who is NOT on trial.
Not the trial happening in court, but as you can see, she's on trial in the
court of public opinion.
What these jackasses
Who are the jackasses...the defense lawyers? You don't much about what
they're paid to do...huh?
want to do is to taint the media and possible jury
members to show that the accuser had a history of such behavior.
If that's the case, then the law should allow such evidence.
But the evidence should not be handed to the media.
A woman is walking down a street and is grabbed by two men who proceed to
rape her.
During the trial it is learned the woman has a history of prostitution
even
though now she's a full fledged attorney.
The two men are set free because the woman was known to have had sex for
hire in the past?
Where has that happened? I'd really like to read about it. Please post it
here. That's interesting because prostitutes can be raped and people that
rape them can be charged and convicted.
Had the past criminal record not been allowed to be spoken of, as it
should
be, the two men would be sitting in a jail cell for a long time.
Yep...please post that article.
It is the act of the moment that is on trial, not previous history.
What if the defense finds a dozen women who are willing to testify that
Bryant had sex with them in a motel room even while he was married?
Would this not establish reasonable grounds to believe that Bryant is not
exactly a choir boy?
It would mean just that. He had affairs while he was married. Many people do
including members of a church.
The question is, who made the initial contact and for what reason?
Did little miss nightingale go calling on the famed person who had 3 body
guards with him?
Or did Bryant request her presence?
Did she make an offer of sex? Or did Bryant?
Google Kobe...many articles will come up and you can get answers to your
questions...they are there.
And just where were the 3 bodyguards all this time? Did either of them
engage with the little #@&@
?
When things go sour, perhaps she's not paid enough, or maybe Bryant wants
more than she's willing to give, she decides to cry rape.
Yep...definitely google Kobe. We have been over these issues before.
If it is found Bryant is not guilty of the charges, will miss nightingale
be
charged with filing false reports and charges?
I doubt it because the DA's office believes she was raped. She does not file
charges, the prosecutors office does.
This is precisely why we have laws, courts, judges, and juries.
That is true.
|
| |
| |
In article <truXb.33526$1O.26123@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
Oh wow...most of us didn't know you knew Bryant personally...he talked about
his innermost feelings to you.You have to let us know these things, you have
such an advantage.
Well, I have to admit I don't know him as well as Mikey does.
Does he seem traumatized to you?
|
| |
| |
In article <truXb.33526$1O.26123@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:
In article <q7kXb.1337$_3.19345@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Well, I have to admit I don't know him as well as Mikey does.
Does he seem traumatized to you?
To be honest, I don't pay much attention anymore so I don't know. I'll wait
until he's in the *defendants* chair at the trial...I'll see how he looks to
me then.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message
news:<6bd12cd6.0402132121.105e3e37@posting.google.com>...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?searc
h=filter
Prosecutors unleashed a vigorous defense of Colorado's rape- shield
law in response to a request by Kobe Bryant's lawyers that the statute
be declared unconstitutional.
Yeah, what a vigorous defense. Just alot of hand waving,
knee-jerking, and use of all the old tired feminist cliches.
[...]
Well you knew this was coming. "Prosecutor Jaqueline Boot said,
'Golly, it's just so hard to jail men when we let them put on a
defense. And they only put the victims on trial when they defend
themselves. The trials themselves are a travesty, because they
insinuate that the victims may not be telling the truth. They should
thus be bypassed altogether, and we should proceed straight to
sentencing based on the lone extended finger of the victim.'"
(snipped for convience)
Nice, very nice.
Greg Brown
|
| |
| |
I was speaking in a more or less generic possibility of such an act of rape
taking place.
Not that one ever happened in that manner.
Besides, not all cases are documented on the internet.
The year was 1973-74. Elizabeth Montgomery [Bewitched] starred in a movie
called "Rape".
Her character had been brutally raped and was a known prostitute with a
criminal history for same.
The prosecuting attorney slashed away and put her on trial. The judge did
nothing.
Because of that moive, Ohio rewrote it's laws so that a person's past
criminal history or as they call it "Previous servitude", could not be used
as character assassination.
Many states followed suit.
Now it is the accpeted law that even a woman can be charged with raping a
woman, regardless of the fact either were, or are prosrtitutes.
It is the fact that a crime took place and the only things that matter are
what is directly connected to the crime.
Neither side could bring in a witness claiming either the victim or the
charged, did this or that in the past when it has no bearing on the case at
hand.
The parents can only be questioned about what is relevant to the crime. Not
their child's previous patterns of behavior.
Witnesses can only testify to what they know and have seen in regards to the
incident and nothing more.
What I don't like is the fact that this so called alleged victim has never
been publicly identified and the fact that the judge won't allow her name to
be mentioned in court. Bull#@($. Bryant has been tried and convicted on
national tv.
That's not justice.
|
| |
| |
urin_turam@yahoo.com (Turin) wrote in message news:<62178907.0402141208.2ed170d5@posting.google.com>...
So, Greg. When do you plan on going into practice to take this stuff
on, yourself, instead of working for firms that promote it?
Well, I have good news and bad news.
Bad: I've no law degree. Not even on TV. I'd go get a law degree if
I could, but those are a little hard to come by.
Good: As for working for firms that promote this, I can't possibly be
doing that, because I'm not working.
So....there.
greg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message news:<ac57efe0.0402140546.580ad855@posting.google.com>...
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message news:<6bd12cd6.0402132121.105e3e37@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Raben also disputed the defense argument that the rape-shield law is
unfair.
"Incidence of false reporting is extremely low," she said. Victims
"don't generally make up stories of sexual assault."
This statement is pregnant with the assumption that accusers are
_always_ truthful, an obvious absurdity. Victims of sexual assault
don't need to invent fictitious stories of sexual, they have
experienced a real one. It is not victims who make up stories of
sexual assault, but women who are _not_ victims of sexual assault.
In any case, claims that incidence of false reporting are "low" are
routinely made without recourse to data supporting the claim. The
unwillingness of proponents of this notion to substantiate it exposes
their lack of confidence in its veracity.
Meanwhile, in a separate motion, the Resource Center of Eagle County,
where the 19-year-old was counseled, launched a blistering attack on
the media and the Bryant defense team, claiming their actions and
comments have demeaned Bryant's accuser.
It said the defense team and media are attempting either to obtain
records of or hear evidence about the interaction between a resource
advocate and the accuser, and about any notes or records that may have
been made of that interaction. But those conversations and records are
absolutely privileged under Colorado law, the resource center said.
"Not only are her name, home and e-mail addresses and phone number
widely available on the Internet, but various photographs purporting
to be her are 'passed among the sites like a dirty postcard,"' the
resource center said. "Defense counsel refers to the alleged victim as
the 'accuser,' a practice that has now been adopted by the media all
over the country.
Most likely because the term is accurate at this point.
The defendant has attempted to offer evidence about
the alleged victim's prior medical history to demonstrate 'the
accuser's motive, scheme, plan and modus operandi,' terms commonly
used to describe the behavior of criminals, not alleged victims," the
resource center said.
Well! Imagine offering _evidence_! The very idea!
In another motion, lawyers for the woman asked that all pretrial
issues related to her medical records be conducted in the judge's
chambers, not in public.
"This is one of those things that is not going to satisfy all three
sides of the triangle here," he said. "If Ruckriegle says this is
going to be completely candid and open, the victim is not going to
like it, and the defendant is not going to like it. If he says we're
going to do it in secret, the media is not going to like it."
If the name of an accused can be circulated publicly by media outlets,
the availability of the name of the accuser only on the internet is
hardly fair. It should receive the same circulation as the accuseds,
not less.
|
| |
| |
In article <c0lrtc02b33@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
A woman is walking down a street and is grabbed by two men who proceed to
rape her.
During the trial it is learned the woman has a history of prostitution even
though now she's a full fledged attorney.
The two men are set free because the woman was known to have had sex for
hire in the past?
Had the past criminal record not been allowed to be spoken of, as it should
be, the two men would be sitting in a jail cell for a long time.
It is the act of the moment that is on trial, not previous history.
What if the defense finds a dozen women who are willing to testify that
Bryant had sex with them in a motel room even while he was married?
Would this not establish reasonable grounds to believe that Bryant is not
exactly a choir boy?
You are such a hypocrit. Wouldnt the fact that the women was known to
have had sex for hire in the past show she was not exactly a choir girl?
It is not about what an accused has or has not done in the past, it is
about the fact that a criminal charge has been made.
--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln
|
| |
| |
In article <c0lrtc02b33@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
If it is found Bryant is not guilty of the charges, will miss nightingale be
charged with filing false reports and charges?
If so it doesnt show she filed a false report, it just shows the
prosecution was unable to prove the case. Unless they can come up with
solid evidence she filed a false police report then no.
--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln
|
| |
| |
reg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message news:<ac57efe0.0402142237.7eeb16ec@posting.google.com>...
turin_turam@yahoo.com (Turin) wrote in message news:<62178907.0402141208.2ed170d5@posting.google.com>...
Well, I have good news and bad news.
Bad: I've no law degree. Not even on TV. I'd go get a law degree if
I could, but those are a little hard to come by.
And you're not GA either, Right?
Good: As for working for firms that promote this, I can't possibly be
doing that, because I'm not working.
So....there.
Those who play along with the women's rights industry do eventually
get thrown away by it.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?search=filter
Prosecutors unleashed a vigorous defense of Colorado's rape- shield
law in response to a request by Kobe Bryant's lawyers that the statute
be declared unconstitutional.
Yeah, what a vigorous defense. Just alot of hand waving,
knee-jerking, and use of all the old tired feminist cliches.
[...]
Easter said Colorado courts, in upholding the rape-shield law, have
held that cross-examinations digging into a woman's sexual history
have served "only to put her on trial instead of the defendant."
Well you knew this was coming. "Prosecutor Jaqueline Boot said,
'Golly, it's just so hard to jail men when we let them put on a
defense. And they only put the victims on trial when they defend
themselves. The trials themselves are a travesty, because they
insinuate that the victims may not be telling the truth. They should
thus be bypassed altogether, and we should proceed straight to
sentencing based on the lone extended finger of the victim.'"
Hey Jackboot, the _accuser_ is not on trial, because she won't go to
prison pending the outcome of the trial. Get it? The defense does
put her credibility on trial, because their client can be convicted
based on her word alone. The only real defense they have is to put
her credibility on trial. Do you get _that_?
Anpeytu Raben, director of the Sexual Assault Survivors of Greeley,
said the idea behind the rape-shield law is to encourage
sexual-assault victims to come forward.
Whether they've been assaulted or not.
Exposing an accuser's sexual
history - especially in a high-profile case such as the one against
Bryant - only adds to the already low percentage of cases reported to
authorities, she said.
How can one calculate the percentage of cases reported? If they
aren't reported, how do you know they happened? Do you determine this
percentage by comparing the number of rape reports to the number of
rapes that you detect telepathically?
Like I said, this so-called "vigorous defense" is just handwaving and
knee-jerking. There's no constitutional law discussed here.
"The whole (court) experience is so traumatizing," Raben said. "We
Well people will ask you a few tough questions when you try to put
someone in jail for four years. But, as one would expect, Jaqueline
Boot would give women the right to summarily jail any man with one
point of the finger. They'd want some time in the courtroom, just to
make it look like due process, but they'd serve her mocha lattes and
scones the entire time.
have people ... asking us in the first half-hour, 'Am I going to have
to go to court?' They're just sure they're going to get turned inside
out through that process."
Leave it to the feminist jackboots to equate an uncomfortable hour on
the stand with four years in prison. "She's being raped all over
again!" they cry.
Can women tolerate being doubted in any way, or do they insist on
being infallible?
Raben also disputed the defense argument that the rape-shield law is
unfair.
Yeah right. Here's how she "disputed" it. How thoroughly
unimpressive.
"Incidence of false reporting is extremely low," she said. Victims
"don't generally make up stories of sexual assault."
And your justification for that statement would be ..... what?
Nothing, of course. I keep forgetting that women shouldn't have to
justify their statements. Prompting them to do so is either raping
them or putting them on trial. I forget which.
Meanwhile, in a separate motion, the Resource Center of Eagle County,
where the 19-year-old was counseled, launched a blistering attack on
the media
Have they been burning magazines and newspapers again? What is the
media supposed to report? "In the news, Kobe Bryant raped a woman in
Eagle County. He is free on bail pending a preliminary hearing, but
there is no question he raped her. The trial is perfunctory. He
definitely raped her. He did nothing other than rape her. She was
raped, and it was by Kobe Bryant. It was nothing other than a rape
committed by Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant raped her. Back to you, Bob."
Would this be more to the liking of the Hersource Center of Eagle
County?
and the Bryant defense team, claiming their actions and
comments have demeaned Bryant's accuser.
What is the Bryant defense team supposed to do? "OK, there there.
Now we know the accuser is a completely upstanding citizen of
unquestionable character, but we do think there's a mild possibility
that our client may possibly be innocent. NOT TO QUESTION THE WOMAN,
mind you. We'd never be so insensitive. But we do think there is
some possibility that he may possibly not have committed a crime, and
there is a slight chance that he's innocent. Sorry to put the victim
on trial. The defense rests."
It said the defense team and media are attempting either to obtain
records of or hear evidence about the interaction between a resource
advocate and the accuser, and about any notes or records that may have
been made of that interaction. But those conversations and records are
absolutely privileged und
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <q7kXb.1337$_3.19345@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Bryant doesn't seem especially traumatized to me.
Well hell -- neither does Party Girl.
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <truXb.33526$1O.26123@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:
Well, I have to admit I don't know him as well as Mikey does.
Does he seem traumatized to you?
No less so than Miss Party Faber.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message news:<6bd12cd6.0402132121.105e3e37@posting.google.com>...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1887484,00.html?search=filter
Prosecutors unleashed a vigorous defense of Colorado's rape- shield
law in response to a request by Kobe Bryant's lawyers that the statute
be declared unconstitutional.
Women @$#*ing entire basketball teams does not mean they were asking for it.
However...
men looking at porno mags or internet porn means they are potential rapists.
I'm I alone in seeing a disparity?
Prosecutor Dana Easter said Colorado courts have consistently upheld
the law, calling it an effort to correct a former practice of trial
courts that allowed "wide latitude in cross-examining" rape victims
about their prior sexual conduct.
This practice, wrote one of the Colorado courts, was based on "little
or no analysis" of the "logical connection" between the victim's
credibility and her prior sexual conduct, Easter noted.
Easter said Colorado courts, in upholding the rape-shield law, have
held that cross-examinations digging into a woman's sexual history
have served "only to put her on trial instead of the defendant."
Anpeytu Raben, director of the Sexual Assault Survivors of Greeley,
said the idea behind the rape-shield law is to encourage
sexual-assault victims to come forward. Exposing an accuser's sexual
history - especially in a high-profile case such as the one against
Bryant - only adds to the already low percentage of cases reported to
authorities, she said.
"The whole (court) experience is so traumatizing," Raben said. "We
have people ... asking us in the first half-hour, 'Am I going to have
to go to court?' They're just sure they're going to get turned inside
out through that process."
Raben also disputed the defense argument that the rape-shield law is
unfair.
"Incidence of false reporting is extremely low," she said. Victims
"don't generally make up stories of sexual assault."
Meanwhile, in a separate motion, the Resource Center of Eagle County,
where the 19-year-old was counseled, launched a blistering attack on
the media and the Bryant defense team, claiming their actions and
comments have demeaned Bryant's accuser.
It said the defense team and media are attempting either to obtain
records of or hear evidence about the interaction between a resource
advocate and the accuser, and about any notes or records that may have
been made of that interaction. But those conversations and records are
absolutely privileged under Colorado law, the resource center said.
"Not only are her name, home and e-mail addresses and phone number
widely available on the Internet, but various photographs purporting
to be her are 'passed among the sites like a dirty postcard,"' the
resource center said. "Defense counsel refers to the alleged victim as
the 'accuser,' a practice that has now been adopted by the media all
over the country. The defendant has attempted to offer evidence about
the alleged victim's prior medical history to demonstrate 'the
accuser's motive, scheme, plan and modus operandi,' terms commonly
used to describe the behavior of criminals, not alleged victims," the
resource center said.
In another motion, lawyers for the woman asked that all pretrial
issues related to her medical records be conducted in the judge's
chambers, not in public.
"This is one of those things that is not going to satisfy all three
sides of the triangle here," he said. "If Ruckriegle says this is
going to be completely candid and open, the victim is not going to
like it, and the defendant is not going to like it. If he says we're
going to do it in secret, the media is not going to like it."
|
| |
| |
In article <c0r863$1pc$3@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
tjab wrote:
Well hell -- neither does Party Girl.
Would that make Bryant Party Boy?
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <c0r863$1pc$3@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Would that make Bryant Party Boy?
Yep. So? Just looking for a subject-change, are you? Don't want
to acknowledge that your "doesn't seem very traumatized" comment
applies just as well to her? 'Cause you don't want to let go of
your precious justification for your precious rape shield laws that
shield the accuser but not the equally-traumatized-accused?
|
| |
| |
In article <c0uh5o$6u4$2@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
tjab wrote:
Yep. So? Just looking for a subject-change, are you? Don't want
to acknowledge that your "doesn't seem very traumatized" comment
applies just as well to her? 'Cause you don't want to let go of
your precious justification for your precious rape shield laws that
shield the accuser but not the equally-traumatized-accused?
What justification was that? I don't think I've offered an opinion
one way or the other on rape shield laws. Next time wait for the
hammer before you let your knee start jerking.
|
| |
| |
In article <c0uh5o$6u4$2@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
What justification was that? I don't think I've offered an opinion
one way or the other on rape shield laws. Next time wait for the
hammer before you let your knee start jerking.
Bull#@($ -- you offered "Bryant doesn't seem especially traumatized"
as a response to "the defendant is just as likely to be traumatized by
publicity as the accuser". Don't try to rhetoricize and then run and
hide behind your "I haven't expressed an opinion" facade.
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c0lq57$t45@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <q7kXb.1337$_3.19345@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Bryant doesn't seem especially traumatized to me.
OK, where do you go from here?
If trauma is your measure, how do you measure his accuser?
And what conclusions do you draw from this?
Rich
|
| |
| |
The trouble with rape shield laws is not that they prevent
cross-examination of the victims past sexual experiences but that it
creates an inherent bias against the defendant. The intent of the rape
shield law is after all to protect a victim and not discourage her from
coming forward to name the rapist.
However in doing so, the court affords privileges to the accuser not
afforded to the accused. This destroys the neutrality of the court.
Neutrality requires the same privileges afforded to both sides equally.
If the accusers identity may be withheld from publication, then the
defendants name should be withheld as well. If cross-examination is
not permitted to delve into the sexual history of the accuser then it
shouldnt be allowed of the defendant either.
The statement that the incidence of false reporting is extremely low is
irrelevant. If courts have a difficult time determining if a report is
false or not, how can researchers be sure their results are any more
accurate?
Deep pockets tend to attract lawsuits whether they belong to individuals
or corporations. Defendants with deep pockets such as Kobe Bryant have
more to lose than average citizens. Most, if not all of his
endorsements have been terminated or not renewed.
When the court says that the accuser must be protected but not the
accused, it is making a pretrial judgment that the accuser is more
believable than the defendant. I do not oppose the provisions of the
rape shield law, I just believe that it should apply equally to both sides.
Ian wrote:
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in message news:<6bd12cd6.0402132121.105e3e37@posting.google.com>...
Women @$#*ing entire basketball teams does not mean they were asking for it.
However...
men looking at porno mags or internet porn means they are potential rapists.
I'm I alone in seeing a disparity?
|
| |
| |
The trouble with rape shield laws is not that they prevent
cross-examination of the victims past sexual experiences but that it
creates an inherent bias against the defendant. The intent of the rape
shield law is after all to protect a victim and not discourage her fr | | |
