|
Why do i get the feeling that you would tell molested children to sit down shut up and quit damaging peoples lives with their accusationsYou would be completely wrong. I would tell molested children that it is important for them to tell what actually happened, vs. what nice Mr. Andrew R. has already decided happened. And I would then allow the court to rule on the matter, before deciding I knew better.
And when the court tells them they are wrong should they say what they know happened or what the court tells them really happened.
The evidence did not support charges of rape. Refer to the statutes Comrade Anklebiter referenced. "Sexual assault" =/= rape, no matter how many people insist on conflating them.
The evidence being that they copped to lesser charges? That doesn't prove anything either way.
Wanna know why some people think the answer to everything is to punish the "bad guys?" Here is your answer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when the court tells them they are wrong should they say what they know happened or what the court tells them really happened.
Right, because that is what courts do. Seek help, man. You seriously need it.
And when the court tells them they are wrong should they say what they know happened or what the court tells them really happened.
Yes, that's it. The court is always wrong. The accuser is always right. How could I be so stupid?
P.S. You raped my dog.
The evidence being that they copped to lesser charges? That doesn't prove anything either way.
Dude, if there were photos of rape, it'd be slam-dunk. Nobody would offer them a plea, and I'd be with everyone else clamoring for them to be put to death.
In fact, as I stated, if they did something a lot worse than what I'm thinking, I hope like hell the court rejects their plea deal and sentences them to max-to-life. I am in no way against them getting what they deserve. I am all about them getting a fair trial, without false allegations and without every swinging dick in the world deciding for themselves what they "deserve." I don't think we should abandon the rule of law.
|
|
And when the court tells them they are wrong should they say what they know happened or what the court tells them really happened.Right, because that is what courts do. Seek help, man. You seriously need it.
I spend a LOT of time following real cases and yes the courts (mostly lawyers) DO twist the truth and try to convince the kids of the reality they want them to, NOT what the kids actually went through
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The evidence did not support charges of rape. Refer to the statutes Comrade Anklebiter referenced. "Sexual assault" =/= rape, no matter how many people insist on conflating them.
There is a difference between what happened and what the prosecutor feels they can prove. Just because the prosecutor decided not to risk them walking entirely and took a plea does not mean that rape didn't occur.
To turn this around, you would never secure a libel or slander allegation against her. Because the court can't prove libel or slander, then it isn't libel or slander.
And if that's not enough, how do I know you didn't rape my dog? I say you did.
If your dog says it, I'll listen.
The evidence being that they copped to lesser charges? That doesn't prove anything either way.Dude, if there were photos of rape, it'd be slam-dunk. Nobody would offer them a plea, and I'd be with everyone else clamoring for them to be put to death.
In fact, as I stated, if they did something a lot worse than what I'm thinking, I hope like hell the court rejects their plea deal and sentences them to max-to-life.
I don't think we should abandon the rule of law, though.
Well, I've never argued for abandoning the rule of law, and I'm also opposed to the death penalty for rapists, but if we're going to sit here and say that we shouldn't call them rapists because we don't know what they did, then it only seems fair that we shouldn't call her a slanderer because we don't know what they did.
|
|
Why do i get the feeling that you would tell molested children to sit down shut up and quit damaging peoples lives with their accusationsBecause you think someone can only be concerned for one party instead of both?
Stopping her from speaking is protecting her attackers and depriving other potential victims of a warning. is serves only the boys.
Stopping her from speaking is protecting her attackers and depriving other potential victims of a warning. is serves only the boys.
On the contrary, stopping everyone from speaking was also preventing them from telling their side of the story. Now that the gag rule is lifted, she can name them, and they can explain if and why her allegations of "rape" are B.S. Unless you think it should remain in force on them, because they're initially the accused?
|
|
Stopping her from speaking is protecting her attackers and depriving other potential victims of a warning. is serves only the boys.On the contrary, stopping everyone from speaking was also preventing them from telling their side of the story. Now that the gag rule is lifted, she can name them, and they can explain if and why her allegations of "rape" are B.S. Unless you think it should remain in force on them, because they're initially the accused?
It should never have existed.
It should never have existed.
Maybe so, but again, it's pretty standard for juvie cases other than murder. It can easily be lifted -- like they did in this case -- but that's not the default because in most cases, it makes sense to have it in place.
"punished" but very likely free to recommit. that is why it is good for her to warn others.
Awaiting sentencing =/= automatically get off free.
I don't know any practical way that sentencing can occur instantaneously, so let's just wait and see what they actually get, vs. what you're assuming they'll get. Like I said, if they did something more along the lines of what you're assuming (and less along the lines of what I'm thinking), then I personally hope the court rejects any plea and throws the book at them.
It should never have existed.Maybe so, but again, it's pretty standard for juvie cases other than murder.
Is it standard because murder is considered differently, or because the offenders were tried as adults?
And she can do that after their names and crimes are released.Attackers that are already being punished. Her actions could get them killed, which is not the punishment being levied."punished" but very likely free to recommit. that is why it is good for her to warn others.
Also, is there any reason to believe the names and crimes would have ever been released if the case hadn't gone public?
|
|
Also, is there any reason to believe the names and crimes would have ever been released if the case hadn't gone public?And she can do that after their names and crimes are released.Attackers that are already being punished. Her actions could get them killed, which is not the punishment being levied."punished" but very likely free to recommit. that is why it is good for her to warn others.
I just don't see why so many are desperate to keep it quiet
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not up on the law in that regard. If the gag order would have been indefinite, I would agree with her breaking it after the sentencing.
I just don't see why so many are desperate to keep it quiet
Not being one of them, I can't enlighten you. I myself don't see why you can't allow a grace period to prevent the threat of excessive violence.
if we're going to sit here and say that we shouldn't call them rapists because we don't know what they did, then it only seems fair that we shouldn't call her a slanderer because we don't know what they did.
We know they committed some offense that falls under the broad heading of "sexual assault" -- we have photos, eyewitness, their own admissions. That's pretty well set. We (the people in the thread) have no idea what they did that falls under that extremely borad range of possibilities -- as we went though above, it covers everything from stupid but harmless immaturity all the way up through some fairly horrible s%*+.
If they had actually raped her, but were smart enough not to photograph that part, there would still be eyewitnesses, medical evidence, forensic (DNA) evidence, etc. available for the taking. None of which seems to have been collected or appeared. Now, if you think it's all a conspiracy by the hospitals, the police, the courts, and the other people at the party, OK, but I don't know what to say at that point.
In other words, we can have no idea what they did within a certain range, but also be pretty sure it doesn't fall outside that range. We do know they didn't do nothing. We can also be pretty sure they didn't rape her.
Is it standard because murder is considered differently, or because the offenders were tried as adults?
Good question. I have no idea, but I'm sure we can look it up.
I just don't see why so many are desperate to keep it quiet
Just to be clear, I'm in no way defending a gag order in this particular case. I'm against declaring the defendants to be "rapists" without regard for the evidence, the courts, or the rule of law. And I'm against the idea that a defendant's understandable desire for revenge should always be the best yardstick of truth and appropriate punishment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can also be pretty sure they didn't rape her.
I don't think we can.
The incident took place months (I believe) before the victim found out and the family pressed charges. I'd imagine this would have a huge effect on the collection of physical evidence.
I'm pretty sure that, from where we're standing, there is very little that we can be pretty sure about.
|
|
if we're going to sit here and say that we shouldn't call them rapists because we don't know what they did, then it only seems fair that we shouldn't call her a slanderer because we don't know what they did.We know they committed some offense that falls under the broad heading of "sexual assault" -- we have photos, eyewitness, their own admissions. That's pretty well set. We (the people in the thread) have no idea what they did that falls under that extremely borad range of possibilities -- as we went though above, it covers everything from stupid but harmless immaturity all the way up through some fairly horrible s~#+.
If they had actually raped her, but were smart enough not to photograph that part, there would still be eyewitnesses, medical evidence, forensic (DNA) evidence, etc. available for the taking. None of which seems to have been collected or appeared. Now, if you think it's all a conspiracy by the hospitals, the police, the courts, and the other people at the party, OK, but I don't know what to say at that point.
In other words, we can have no idea what they did within a certain range, but also be pretty sure it doesn't fall outside that range. We do know they didn't do nothing. We can also be pretty sure they didn't rape her.
I see what you are doing here is playing semantics, would you want to see someone punished for calling someone a murderer if all they got convicted of is manslaughter?
|
|
We can also be pretty sure they didn't rape her.I don't think we can.
The incident took place months (I believe) before the victim found out and the family pressed charges. I'd imagine this would have a huge effect on the collection of physical evidence.
I'm pretty sure that, from where we're standing, there is very little that we can be pretty sure about.
It sounds like she knew but now they have evidence to act on
Also, good work Citizen Kryzbyn! Two and a half pages on a sex-crime! I'd rather be talking about the crimes of imperialism, or the rigging of LIBOR, but, heck, I'll take a Gov't Folly conversation on just about anything!
It sounds like she knew but now they have evidence to act onWe can also be pretty sure they didn't rape her.I don't think we can.
The incident took place months (I believe) before the victim found out and the family pressed charges. I'd imagine this would have a huge effect on the collection of physical evidence.
I'm pretty sure that, from where we're standing, there is very little that we can be pretty sure about.
I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds like she was one of the last to know.
I see what you are doing here is playing semantics, would you want to see someone punished for calling someone a murderer if all they got convicted of is manslaughter?
We have definitions for what crimes are what. So if the difference between "assault" and "murder" is only semantics, then, yes, that's exactly it. Or if you accidentally take a pen home from work, that's the same as robbing a bank.
ALL CRIMES ARE NOT EQUAL. That's not just semantics; that's how the justice system of pretty much every civilized country everywhere operates.
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds like she was one of the last to know.It sounds like she knew but now they have evidence to act onWe can also be pretty sure they didn't rape her.I don't think we can.
The incident took place months (I believe) before the victim found out and the family pressed charges. I'd imagine this would have a huge effect on the collection of physical evidence.
I'm pretty sure that, from where we're standing, there is very little that we can be pretty sure about.
"For months, I cried myself to sleep," Dietrich said. "I couldn't go out in public places."
Sounds like she has known for some time to me.
Crime takes place in August of 2011. She doesn't find out for months, according to the article. Pictures and rumors circulate, then she finds out, then she starts crying.
Wanna know why some people think the answer to everything is to punish the "bad guys?" Here is your answer.
Really? It's just the right? There's no left wing authoritarianism?
I spend a LOT of time following real cases and yes the courts (mostly lawyers) DO twist the truth and try to convince the kids of the reality they want them to, NOT what the kids actually went throughAnd when the court tells them they are wrong should they say what they know happened or what the court tells them really happened.Right, because that is what courts do. Seek help, man. You seriously need it.
While I agree with Kirth on most of this I also agree that the legal system does a horrible job on most things. The system often treats child victims horribly.
That said, what you said about Kirth and molested children was an incredibly s#+@ty cheap shot.
I appreciate your passion, but let's try to keep it above the belt.
Kirth, I get your point, but please quit saying Andrew raped your dog. It's pretty creepy.
Thank you all for not getting my thread closed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, I get your point, but please quit saying Andrew raped your dog. It's pretty creepy.
Also, it was me.
Really? It's just the right? There's no left wing authoritarianism?Down this road lies an argument about the definition of "left-wing" and "right-wing", which differs on some key points in certain discussion circles. Suffice it to say, it's a useless semantic argument to argue about whether totalitarian governments are left or right, when pretty much everyone with any sense thinks that they're a bad idea. Similarly, arguing about whether all/some/no government intervention will lead to totalitarianism is probably beyond the scope of this thread and will lead to very familiar battle lines being drawn.
So can we head off this derail at the pass and focus on whether such-and-such news story is an outrageous government screw-up instead of getting this thread locked?
Thank you, but Bugley and I have sparred on this before, and I'm sure we will again.
I'm pretty sure I've defended minarchy and libertarianism on this thread before so I don't consider it a bad side track.
Part of why I started this thread was to examine the failings of the state, and I obviously have an agenda and a strong belief that government does a lot of things very badly.
I'm pretty sure we've gone down most of the rabbit holes you mentioned in some 2000 posts, but your input is appreciated.
Kirth, I get your point, but please quit saying Andrew raped your dog. It's pretty creepy.Also, it was me.
"This gives me an uncomfortableness."
Also, good work Citizen Kryzbyn! Two and a half pages on a sex-crime! I'd rather be talking about the crimes of imperialism, or the rigging of LIBOR, but, heck, I'll take a Gov't Folly conversation on just about anything!
If I had it to do over, I dunno that I would have posted this here. I read the article and was immediately pissed, and posted this as an injustice. Kirth however, is correct that there isn't enough known to automaticly agree she should have broken the gag order, per se.
Not enough known to argue it with any intellectual honesty, that is...
Kirth, I get your point, but please quit saying Andrew raped your dog. It's pretty creepy.
Well, that was sort of the point -- the accusation seems creepy, ergo it must be true and he must spend life in prison without a trial or he's "getting away with it."
But, yeah, I probably should have thought of a better example. And I won't say it again.
Kirth, I get your point, but please quit saying Andrew raped your dog. It's pretty creepy.Well, that was sort of the point -- the accusation seems creepy, ergo it must be true and he must spend life in prison without a trial or he's "getting away with it."
But, yeah, I probably should have thought of a better example. And I won't say it again.
Thank you. :)
Oh. So we're talking about government folly to create some sort of pattern, then. Does that include government inaction?
OK.
I'm fond of posting some gross regulatory failures myself, so that's fine. Then we can talk about whether more government bureaucracy is the solution or more freedom.
We can go down the socialized medicine road again too if you want.
Hell, we've probably argued about Waco here a few times.
There are a lot of posts about civil liberty violations too. That's a personal favorite of mine.
If I had it to do over, I dunno that I would have posted this here. I read the article and was immediately pissed, and posted this as an injustice. Kirth however, is correct that there isn't enough known to automaticly agree she should have broken the gag order, per se.
Not enough known to argue it with any intellectual honesty, that is...
Well, my original reaction was pretty pissy, too, and the only reason I can think to justify a gag order is because they're juvenile offenders. If that's the way things are done in juvie, then, okay, I guess. I'm unaware of preemptive slander gag-orders and would probably be against them.
Although I was thinking about it some more, and I came to the conclusion that they probably tea-bagged her. I mean, you know, based on me making stuff up. But it fits everything we know:
"She's asleep, there's a camera, hee hee!, woah, now we're charged with first-degree sexual abuse and she's calling us rapists? Aargh!"
Yeah, tea-bagging. Don't do it, kids.
I hope lesson learned here is unconscious chick is not your personal play thing.
Leave the tea-bagging for online games of Halo, kids.
So last night I asked Mrs. Gersen her opinion, because she's often a good reality-check for me when I go off on a long road into the hinterlands of sanity. She said, "Never mind the boys -- where the hell were this chick's friends, that they let her pass out at a party and didn't even keep an eye on her? They're the ones who should be thrown in jail!" She was very angry about this aspect, which I admittedly hadn't even thought of until she mentioned it.
I'm sure she said something to her friends by now, if they still deserve that moniker or not.