|
|
|
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpZmFlcXBpBF9TAzk1ODYxOTQ4BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-bryantcase&prov=ap&type=lgns
DENVER (AP) -- Rejecting a prosecution appeal, the Colorado Supreme
Court on Thursday cleared the way for Kobe Bryant's attorneys to ask
the 19-year-old woman accusing him of rape detailed questions about
her sexual past.
The court denied the appeal without comment, which means the woman
will testify behind closed doors during a two-day hearing that begins
March 24.
Prosecutor Mark Hurlbert said he was dismayed by the ruling.
``We continue to have great concern about the humiliation the victim
is being asked to endure at the hands of the criminal justice
system,'' Hurlbert said in a statement. ``Furthermore, future victims
may not report their victimization for fear of similar humiliation.''
``Basically the defense argument as to questioning the victim and her
alleged partners about many of the alleged incidents amounts to
nothing more than she has said `yes' to others, therefore it is more
likely she said `yes' to defendant,'' Hurlbert wrote in his appeal.
``This is precisely the type of evil which the statute was enacted to
eradicate.''
However, state District Judge Terry Ruckriegle denied prosecution
requests to halt the hearing and bar detailed questioning about the
woman's sexual activities from the summer of 2002 to August 2003.
Robert Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern University School of Law
in Los Angeles, said the hearing will be a rehearsal for what the
woman can expect when she testifies at trial.
``They aren't going to grind her into hamburger meat, but they're
going to show her this is not fun and games and that the defense is
devoted to its client,'' he said. ``His freedom and liberty are at
stake.''
Cynthia Stone of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault said
the loss of privacy is one of the key reasons assault victims don't
pursue charges. She said Bryant's accuser will be the subject of a
``horrendous fishing expedition'' at the hands of the defense.
``They're going to be asking her extremely private and humiliating
questions about her sex life -- questions no one wants to answer,
particularly in front of a judge and attorneys and the man you're
accusing of rape,'' she said.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpZmFlcXBpBF9TAzk1ODYxOTQ4BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-bryantcase&prov=ap&type=lgns
DENVER (AP) -- Rejecting a prosecution appeal, the Colorado Supreme
Court on Thursday cleared the way for Kobe Bryant's attorneys to ask
the 19-year-old woman accusing him of rape detailed questions about
her sexual past.
The court denied the appeal without comment, which means the woman
will testify behind closed doors during a two-day hearing that begins
March 24.
Prosecutor Mark Hurlbert said he was dismayed by the ruling.
``We continue to have great concern about the humiliation the victim
is being asked to endure at the hands of the criminal justice
system,'' Hurlbert said in a statement. ``Furthermore, future victims
may not report their victimization for fear of similar humiliation.''
The US SC ruled on Monday 9 to 0 to uphold the 6th amendment requirement
for the defendant to be able to confront the witness agaisnt him.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/08/scotus.witnesses.ap/index.html
Cases are being dropped by prosecutors all over the country when the
evidence is a witness who's taped police report was evidence last week.
In Oregon the first case under the new SC ruling was dismissed later
the same day.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/107901035645170.xml
The SC almost never rules 9 to 0 on anything any more. It's probably
going to gut the "rape shield" laws of every state. It would be a very
courageous judge to reject any part Bryant's ability to confront the
witness against him. A state may not "shield" any witness if it
violates the defendant's 6th amendment rights to cross-examine the
witness against him.
Bob
``Basically the defense argument as to questioning the victim and her
alleged partners about many of the alleged incidents amounts to
nothing more than she has said `yes' to others, therefore it is more
likely she said `yes' to defendant,'' Hurlbert wrote in his appeal.
``This is precisely the type of evil which the statute was enacted to
eradicate.''
However, state District Judge Terry Ruckriegle denied prosecution
requests to halt the hearing and bar detailed questioning about the
woman's sexual activities from the summer of 2002 to August 2003.
Robert Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern University School of Law
in Los Angeles, said the hearing will be a rehearsal for what the
woman can expect when she testifies at trial.
``They aren't going to grind her into hamburger meat, but they're
going to show her this is not fun and games and that the defense is
devoted to its client,'' he said. ``His freedom and liberty are at
stake.''
Cynthia Stone of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault said
the loss of privacy is one of the key reasons assault victims don't
pursue charges. She said Bryant's accuser will be the subject of a
``horrendous fishing expedition'' at the hands of the defense.
``They're going to be asking her extremely private and humiliating
questions about her sex life -- questions no one wants to answer,
particularly in front of a judge and attorneys and the man you're
accusing of rape,'' she said.
--
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/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:6bd12cd6.0403111834.7778600f@posting.google.com...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpZmFlcXBpBF9TAzk1ODYxOTQ4BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-bryantcas
e&prov=ap&type=lgns
DENVER (AP) -- Rejecting a prosecution appeal, the Colorado Supreme
Court on Thursday cleared the way for Kobe Bryant's attorneys to ask
the 19-year-old woman accusing him of rape detailed questions about
her sexual past.
The court denied the appeal without comment, which means the woman
will testify behind closed doors during a two-day hearing that begins
March 24.
Prosecutor Mark Hurlbert said he was dismayed by the ruling.
``We continue to have great concern about the humiliation the victim
is being asked to endure at the hands of the criminal justice
system,'' Hurlbert said in a statement. ``Furthermore, future victims
may not report their victimization for fear of similar humiliation.''
False reports may go down as well (no pun intended).
``Basically the defense argument as to questioning the victim and her
alleged partners about many of the alleged incidents amounts to
nothing more than she has said `yes' to others, therefore it is more
likely she said `yes' to defendant,'' Hurlbert wrote in his appeal.
That's pretty sloppy of mr. Hurlbert. She _did_ say yes to
Kobe according to her own statements to detectives. And
she made every effort to be with him.
And considering her general behavior, that's not a
big stretch (again, no pun intended).
Cynthia Stone of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault said
the loss of privacy is one of the key reasons assault victims don't
pursue charges. She said Bryant's accuser will be the subject of a
``horrendous fishing expedition'' at the hands of the defense.
``They're going to be asking her extremely private and humiliating
questions about her sex life -- questions no one wants to answer,
particularly in front of a judge and attorneys and the man you're
accusing of rape,'' she said.
There's nothing like the right to face your accuser, but I guess
she would do away with that right too.
How about the right not to be charged with rape if the
encounter happened in your own bedroom? I'd like to
see her advocate that.
<sarcasm on>
I mean, come on, we've already gotten rid of
the Right of the First Night - we might as well
have some protective legislation in it's place.
<sarcasm off>
Alex
|
| |
| |
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40512A9C.3040601@hotmail.com>...
s_knight8 wrote:
The US SC ruled on Monday 9 to 0 to uphold the 6th amendment requirement
for the defendant to be able to confront the witness agaisnt him.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/08/scotus.witnesses.ap/index.html
Cases are being dropped by prosecutors all over the country when the
evidence is a witness who's taped police report was evidence last week.
In Oregon the first case under the new SC ruling was dismissed later
the same day.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/107901035645170.xml
The SC almost never rules 9 to 0 on anything any more. It's probably
going to gut the "rape shield" laws of every state. It would be a very
courageous judge to reject any part Bryant's ability to confront the
witness against him. A state may not "shield" any witness if it
violates the defendant's 6th amendment rights to cross-examine the
witness against him.
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/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
"Sky King" <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote
She shouldn't have brought charges if she can't take the heat.
As the Bishop said to the Choirboy-
c.
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
As the Bishop said to the Choirboy-
Irrelevant twaddle.
--
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/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
She shouldn't have brought charges if she can't take the heat. These
questions
are necessary.
She did not asked to be raped. How are they necessary? mmm...
If you got robbed should the police state if you had ever been robbed before?
If so, then you should not have been stupid enough to get robbed the next
time? And by the way, why were you wearing such a nice suit that showed you
had a lot of money. Don't you know that wearing a Rolex screams "rob me!"
::cyber smack::
V
|
| |
| |
She shouldn't have brought charges if she can't take the heat. These
questions
She did not asked to be raped. How are they necessary? mmm...
If you got robbed should the police state if you had ever been robbed
before?
If so, then you should not have been stupid enough to get robbed the next
time? And by the way, why were you wearing such a nice suit that showed
you
had a lot of money. Don't you know that wearing a Rolex screams "rob me!"
::cyber smack::
V
Climb down, Jack. They're necessary NOT to establish whether she was
raped, but to establish whether her WORD that she was raped is CREDIBLE.
This is a he-said-she-said case: the credibility of the accuser and the
accused
is everything.
|
| |
| |
"V" <vbiggs@frontiernet.net> wrote
She did not asked to be raped. How are they necessary? mmm...
If you got robbed should the police state if you had ever been robbed
before?
If so, then you should not have been stupid enough to get robbed the next
time? And by the way, why were you wearing such a nice suit that showed
you
had a lot of money. Don't you know that wearing a Rolex screams "rob me!"
And the fact that the 'robber' was already rich; had more riches at home,
and could have riches given him for the asking doesn't make any difference
either.
Chas
|
| |
| |
In article <bWw4c.8345$_3.103054@typhoon.sonic.net>, msnyder@redhat.com
says...
before?
you
Climb down, Jack. They're necessary NOT to establish whether she was
raped, but to establish whether her WORD that she was raped is CREDIBLE.
This is a he-said-she-said case: the credibility of the accuser and the
accused
is everything.
|
| |
| |
In article <3jw4c.2651$7f6.2083@news02.roc.ny>, vbiggs@frontiernet.net
says...
She shouldn't have brought charges if she can't take the heat. These
questions
She did not asked to be raped. How are they necessary? mmm...
If you got robbed should the police state if you had ever been robbed before?
If so, then you should not have been stupid enough to get robbed the next
time? And by the way, why were you wearing such a nice suit that showed you
had a lot of money. Don't you know that wearing a Rolex screams "rob me!"
::cyber smack::
V
A cyber smack is as close as you want to come pal.
|
| |
| |
V wrote:
She shouldn't have brought charges if she can't take the heat. These
questions
She did not asked to be raped. How are they necessary? mmm...
She intended and asked for sex. That's what she got.
If you got robbed should the police state if you had ever been robbed before?
If so, then you should not have been stupid enough to get robbed the next
time?
They ask the jurors, why not ask the witnesses?
And by the way, why were you wearing such a nice suit that showed you
had a lot of money. Don't you know that wearing a Rolex screams "rob me!"
::cyber smack::
V
If she didn't want sex she wouldn't have been going to a man's bedroom
at midnight.
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/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
"V" <vbiggs@frontiernet.net> wrote
before?
you
And the fact that the 'robber' was already rich; had more riches at home,
and could have riches given him for the asking doesn't make any difference
either.
Oh, yes it does! It makes it less likely that he actually *is* a robber.
Not impossible, mind you -- just less credible. In a case where there
is nothing but his word against hers, credibility is *everything*.
|
| |
| |
In article <3jw4c.2651$7f6.2083@news02.roc.ny>, vbiggs@frontiernet.net
says...
A cyber smack is as close as you want to come pal.
|
| |
| |
V wrote:
She intended and asked for sex. That's what she got.
They ask the jurors, why not ask the witnesses?
If she didn't want sex she wouldn't have been going to a man's bedroom
at midnight.
Bob
--
This sucks for both men and women who will face persecution in the future for
an age old problem.
V
|
| |
| |
V wrote:
This sucks for both men and women who will face persecution in the future for
an age old problem.
V
Indeed. Disgruntled women making false rape accusations is a problem as
old as humanity.
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/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Oh, yes it does! It makes it less likely that he actually *is* a robber.
Not impossible, mind you -- just less credible. In a case where there
is nothing but his word against hers, credibility is *everything*.
If it had happened in a vacuum, perhaps that's true.
If she had just popped up and said 'Kobe raped me', and there was no
incident between them at all, she'd have something to prove.
If he hadn't denied everything at first, and simply said; 'we had consensual
sex'- there would be something to prove.
If he had said; 'she likes it rough; everybody said so, so she may have some
abrasions'; there would be something to prove.
But; here we are down the line with nothing but Kobe's lies/omissions, and
nothing but support for her accusations. Rapists tend to work in a
one-on-one situation- although there are exceptions of course- so the simple
lack of an eye-witness or video tapes is not particularly startling.
Chas
|
| |
| |
In article <MPG.1abe29f9887ba44298969c@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>,
Sky KIng <laughing@home.net> wrote:
These questions are not to determine if she has had sex before.
She has admitted that.
I think the word you're looking for is "acknowledged."
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
If it had happened in a vacuum, perhaps that's true.
If she had just popped up and said 'Kobe raped me', and there was no
incident between them at all, she'd have something to prove.
If he hadn't denied everything at first, and simply said; 'we had
consensual
sex'- there would be something to prove.
If he had said; 'she likes it rough; everybody said so, so she may have
some
abrasions'; there would be something to prove.
Hate to remind you, but -- guilt of a crime must *always* be proven.
So yes, Chas -- there is something to prove. And all there is to prove
it is her word, so yes, Chas -- her credibility is *everything*.
But; here we are down the line with nothing but Kobe's lies/omissions, and
nothing but support for her accusations.
Talking of lies and omissions -- there is nothing *to* support her
accusations
except -- her word. Therefore her credibility.
Rapists tend to work in a
one-on-one situation- although there are exceptions of course- so the
simple
lack of an eye-witness or video tapes is not particularly startling.
Which would be relevant -- if Kobe were proven to be a rapist.
Since he is not, you can't use that argument against him until you
do. And in the absence of any other evidence, that requires --
her word. Therefore her credibility. Therefore your efforts to
cast aside arguments about her credibility are disengenuous at best.
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Hate to remind you, but -- guilt of a crime must *always* be proven.
So yes, Chas -- there is something to prove. And all there is to prove
it is her word, so yes, Chas -- her credibility is *everything*.
Actually, it's not.
In a lot of rapes, there is no connection between rapist and rapee at all-
any sexual congress is suspect. In acquaintance rape, or even spousal rape,
there may be prior sexual contact, but the instant event was by force and
coersion.
If she was complicit in a sexual event, why report rape?
The answer is generally that she arrived at a complicated plan to sue him
for damages- but without any evidence for that supposition at all.
Talking of lies and omissions -- there is nothing *to* support her
accusations
except -- her word. Therefore her credibility.
She reported a sexual event; he denied it. She asserts it was forced, he
denied it.
That's determinative of the worth of his credibility- on which his denial
hangs.
If it's 'he said, she said', she's the one that hasn't been caught lying
yet.
Which would be relevant -- if Kobe were proven to be a rapist.
Well; isn't that what this is all about?
Since he is not, you can't use that argument against him until you
do. And in the absence of any other evidence, that requires --
her word. Therefore her credibility. Therefore your efforts to
cast aside arguments about her credibility are disengenuous at best.
I'm simply comparing her credibility and his.
His is wanting badly.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c2vgs8$p2s@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
In article <MPG.1abe29f9887ba44298969c@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>,
Sky KIng <laughing@home.net> wrote:
I think the word you're looking for is "acknowledged."
So if a person has sex before, they are not credible as a witness against
their attacker?
mm..kay.
V
|
| |
| |
This sucks for both men and women who will face persecution in the future
for
an age old problem.
V
Booby wrote:
Indeed. Disgruntled women making false rape accusations is a problem as
old as humanity.
Do you have any idea that women have been raped since biblical times and have
been used in war time as weapons against their enemies? That is disgruntled?
When many rapes go unreported. You need to check your facts Mister Man and
then repeat the above sad little comment you made.
V
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<WwI4c.8442$_3.104398@typhoon.sonic.net>...
consensual
some
Hate to remind you, but -- guilt of a crime must *always* be proven.
So yes, Chas -- there is something to prove. And all there is to prove
it is her word, so yes, Chas -- her credibility is *everything*.
Talking of lies and omissions -- there is nothing *to* support her
accusations
except -- her word.
And her blood on the inside of his shirt.
And a jawline bruise.
And Kobe's statements in a secretly recorded interview, which
presumably are incriminating to some degree, since the defense is
trying to supress them.
Therefore her credibility.
simple
Which would be relevant -- if Kobe were proven to be a rapist.
Since he is not, you can't use that argument against him until you
do. And in the absence of any other evidence, that requires --
her word. Therefore her credibility. Therefore your efforts to
cast aside arguments about her credibility are disengenuous at best.
|
| |
| |
V wrote:
This sucks for both men and women who will face persecution in the future
for
an age old problem.
V Booby wrote:
Do you have any idea that women have been raped since biblical times and have
been used in war time as weapons against their enemies? That is disgruntled?
When many rapes go unreported. You need to check your facts Mister Man and
then repeat the above sad little comment you made.
V
Reposting the same old tired feminist hate dogma lies does not add to
the conversation.
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/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
|
| |
| |
"V" <vbiggs@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<EyL4c.1667$2_6.21@news01.roc.ny>...
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c2vgs8$p2s@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
So if a person has sex before, they are not credible as a witness against
their attacker?
mm..kay.
V
Can you read? I said the questions are NOT to determine if she has
had sex before. Its to determine if her injuries, slight as they
were, could have
been caused by having multiple partners in a short period of time. We
already
know she has had sex before.
|
| |
| |
In article <16232246.0403140645.161c4b4@posting.google.com>,
Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:
"V" <vbiggs@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<EyL4c.1667$2_6.21@news01.roc.ny>...
|
| |
| |
"V" <vbiggs@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:<EyL4c.1667$2_6.21@news01.roc.ny>...
So if a person has sex before, they are not credible as a witness
against
their attacker?
mm..kay.
V
Can you read? I said the questions are NOT to determine if she has
had sex before. Its to determine if her injuries, slight as they
were, could have
been caused by having multiple partners in a short period of time. We
already
know she has had sex before.
There's more to it than that. There are two stories here:
His -- she voluntarily engaged in promiscuous sex with me, and
hers -- he raped me. Since there is essentially nothing to decide
the question except his and her word, the credibility of their
stories is *everything*.
If she has had promiscuous sex before, if indeed she has a *pattern*
of having promiscuous sex, this is important information that makes
his version of events more credible. Still more so if she engaged in
promiscuous sex AFTER she alleges that he raped him.
If on the other hand, *he* has *no* history of raping women,
that makes her story *less* credible. In the absence of any other
evidence, what should we believe? That he suddenly became a
rapist, or that she continued to engage in behavior that was
habitual to her already?
|
| |
| |
In article <16232246.0403140645.161c4b4@posting.google.com>,
Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:
|
| |
| |
In article <7715c.8586$_3.108843@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<pd-dnZeK38CUo87dRVn-vA@comcast.com>...
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
If it had happened in a vacuum, perhaps that's true.
It's true regardless of the state of the atmosphere.
If she had just popped up and said 'Kobe raped me', and there was no
incident between them at all, she'd have something to prove.
Clearly with you and tjab there's nothing to prove now.
If he hadn't denied everything at first, and simply said; 'we had consensual
sex'- there would be something to prove.
1) This proves he's a rapist?
2) There are many simple motivations for deny this, for starters, as
you so often point out, he's married.
If he had said; 'she likes it rough; everybody said so, so she may have some
abrasions'; there would be something to prove.
In all rape cases there should be something to prove, two things in
fact, that she was raped, and that the defendant was the one who raped
her.
But; here we are down the line with nothing but Kobe's lies/omissions, and
nothing but support for her accusations.
Nothing but support for her accusations? Can you be specific?
Rapists tend to work in a
one-on-one situation- although there are exceptions of course- so the simple
lack of an eye-witness or video tapes is not particularly startling.
And so the issue of character remains.
BTW, do you just believe *all* rape accusations? Is there anything
which might raise the smallest shadow of doubt in your mind?
Rich
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Rich" <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote
If it had happened in a vacuum, perhaps that's true.
It's true regardless of the state of the atmosphere.
And the context is relevant and material.
If she had just popped up and said 'Kobe raped me', and there was no
incident between them at all, she'd have something to prove.
Clearly with you and tjab there's nothing to prove now.
no one would have known of any contact at all- revealing it at all is
reflective of the context.
If he hadn't denied everything at first, and simply said; 'we had
consensual
sex'- there would be something to prove.
1) This proves he's a rapist?
goes to credibility.
2) There are many simple motivations for deny this, for starters, as
you so often point out, he's married.
So you say he'll lie about simple things if convenient.
noted.
If he had said; 'she likes it rough; everybody said so, so she may have
some
abrasions'; there would be something to prove.
In all rape cases there should be something to prove, two things in
fact, that she was raped, and that the defendant was the one who raped
her.
'Rape' is her call- if you make her like it, she won't call rape; the
complaint is the definition of the crime.
But; here we are down the line with nothing but Kobe's lies/omissions,
and
nothing but support for her accusations.
Nothing but support for her accusations? Can you be specific?
Sure; she said there was an event; he denied it- it was true.
She said the event was with him; he denied it- it was true.
She described an event similar to Portland- consistent with the event
description in Colorado- he denied that any straying had happened before;
the converse is true, and there are other women who have made the same
description of infidelity.
Rapists tend to work in a
one-on-one situation- although there are exceptions of course- so the
simple
lack of an eye-witness or video tapes is not particularly startling.
And so the issue of character remains.
And here he is.
BTW, do you just believe *all* rape accusations? Is there anything
which might raise the smallest shadow of doubt in your mind?
An alibi would help; no participation in the event at all and provable
distance from the complainant; impotence, 3rd Party eyewitnesses, security
video, even a history of similar complaints that were documented as
unfounded- that's off the top of my head; I'm prepared to make similar
concessions.
Kobe has any of those?
Chas
|
| |
| |
V wrote:
Reposting the same old tired feminist hate dogma lies does not add to
the conversation.
Bob
It is not domatic feminist hate.
I love men! I especially love strong, smart and understanding men who do not
believe that it is okay for his fellow gender to be an abuser and use the
excuse "boys will be boys" and of course, turn around and blame someone else.
I would not cheer my friends on as they did something terrible to a man. I do
not like angry women and I sure as hell do not like you labeling me as one
just because I have an opinion about an "old age problem".
Bob I should plonk you now because you give the impression that you are not
only an oppressor of women, but an enabler of your fellow man to harm women.
V
|
| |
| |
V wrote:
have
been used in war time as weapons against their enemies? That is
disgruntled?
When many rapes go unreported. You need to check your facts Mister Man and
then repeat the above sad little comment you made.
V It is not domatic feminist hate.
Call it whatever you want. Reposting the same old tired feminist hate
dogma that was thoroughly debunked when your grandmother tried to use it
does not add to the conversation.
I love men! I especially love strong, smart and understanding men who do not
believe that it is okay for his fellow gender to be an abuser and use the
excuse "boys will be boys" and of course, turn around and blame someone else.
LOL. We've heard that one before. Make up your mind toots. Do you
hate men or love men. Your belief in the old tired hate dogma shows how
you feel.
I would not cheer my friends on as they did something terrible to a man. I do
not like angry women and I sure as hell do not like you labeling me as one
just because I have an opinion about an "old age problem".
Repeating old tire feminist hate dogma shows who you are.
Bob I should plonk you now because you give the impression that you are not
only an oppressor of women, but an enabler of your fellow man to harm women.
V
LOL. "Oppressor of women." What pathetic nonsense. It's YOU posting
the hate dogma V.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of wom | | |
