U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Out West
23,032 posts, read 17,049,411 times
Reputation: 26627

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The video leaves no reasonable doubt that she was trying to escape a non-consensual sexual encounter. I'm not buying that any woman, intoxicated or not, runs out of a room naked away from a man because she's "crazy". It just doesn't happen. Women run away naked from a man to avoid a man who is violating her consent.
I'm not a feminazi, but I will say that it really irritates me when people want to label the female as "drunk and unstable", but never pay attention to the fact that the male could have also been drunk and/or unstable. Sober, since he's some sports "hero", perhaps he's not - then again, just because someone is a doctor, lawyer, athlete, celebrity, doesn't mean they are not unstable - we just don't see it. And since he was also at the bar, and he smelled of alcohol when he refused the breathalyzer, why is no one talking about how drunk HE might have been?

"Oh, she ran out of the room half naked? Clearly she's unstable and he had to drag her back into the room, twice, despite her yelling for help, because he wanted to avoid an 'embarrassing scene'."

And then these very posters have the audacity to tell everyone else to change their minds?

"She didn't tell the cops she was assaulted, therefore, she wasn't." Nope. That does not mean that every single time.

Again, it is very clear that the cops were treating this sports "hero" with kid gloves. He had alcohol breath, refused a breathalyzer, and instead of taking him to the station to draw blood, "hey, whatevs, ya didn't kill anyone on the road, we'll give you a ride home."

Yeah, cause that happens to everybody. It is possible that because of how they treated him is why she didn't tell them that night, while all of them were standing there.

But no, it's because she was "drunk and unstable". If she's that drunk, she cannot consent. If she's that unstable, she cannot consent.

The video plainly shows, very clearly, that she is resisting him pulling her back into the room. He had no right to pull her back in the room. If she's so damn drunk and unstable, he should have contacted the police to help him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 12:15 PM
 
13,114 posts, read 4,032,749 times
Reputation: 3934
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
The question isn't whether there was intent to forcefully restrain someone. Re-read the law that I posted.

Its clear that you believe that, which is a conclusion that you come to without having all of the facts before you I, on the other hand, trust the jury that had more evidence that you (or I) have.
Juries convict innocent men so of course they acquit men who are guilty as sin like OJ for instance.

I don't care so much about the acquittal as much about the special treatment he got. And black jurors generally won't convicted a black person who victimizes a white person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:18 PM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,611 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
I'm not a feminazi, but I will say that it really irritates me when people want to label the female as "drunk and unstable", but never pay attention to the fact that the male could have also been drunk and/or unstable. Sober, since he's some sports "hero", perhaps he's not - then again, just because someone is a doctor, lawyer, athlete, celebrity, doesn't mean they are not unstable - we just don't see it. And since he was also at the bar, and he smelled of alcohol when he refused the breathalyzer, why is no one talking about how drunk HE might have been?

"Oh, she ran out of the room half naked? Clearly she's unstable and he had to drag her back into the room, twice, despite her yelling for help, because he wanted to avoid an 'embarrassing scene'."

And then these very posters have the audacity to tell everyone else to change their minds?

"She didn't tell the cops she was assaulted, therefore, she wasn't." Nope. That does not mean that every single time.

Again, it is very clear that the cops were treating this sports "hero" with kid gloves. He had alcohol breath, refused a breathalyzer, and instead of taking him to the station to draw blood, "hey, whatevs, ya didn't kill anyone on the road, we'll give you a ride home."

Yeah, cause that happens to everybody. It is possible that because of how they treated him is why she didn't tell them that night, while all of them were standing there.

But no, it's because she was "drunk and unstable". If she's that drunk, she cannot consent. If she's that unstable, she cannot consent.

The video plainly shows, very clearly, that she is resisting him pulling her back into the room. He had no right to pull her back in the room. If she's so damn drunk and unstable, he should have contacted the police to help him.
Except, I don't think anyone is saying that (I'm certainly not). We are merely posing plausible hypothetical situations (without knowing the full extent of the evidence) to show that it is not inconceivable for a jury to rule as this one did when presented with all of the facts. At least for the "unstable" part, which is a line I started if memory serves me correctly in this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:19 PM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,611 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Juries convict innocent men so of course they acquit men who are guilty as sin like OJ for instance.

I don't care so much about the acquittal as much about the special treatment he got. And black jurors generally won't convicted a black person who victimizes a white person.
Proof?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:25 PM
 
13,114 posts, read 4,032,749 times
Reputation: 3934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
I'm not a feminazi, but I will say that it really irritates me when people want to label the female as "drunk and unstable", but never pay attention to the fact that the male could have also been drunk and/or unstable. Sober, since he's some sports "hero", perhaps he's not - then again, just because someone is a doctor, lawyer, athlete, celebrity, doesn't mean they are not unstable - we just don't see it. And since he was also at the bar, and he smelled of alcohol when he refused the breathalyzer, why is no one talking about how drunk HE might have been?

"Oh, she ran out of the room half naked? Clearly she's unstable and he had to drag her back into the room, twice, despite her yelling for help, because he wanted to avoid an 'embarrassing scene'."

And then these very posters have the audacity to tell everyone else to change their minds?

"She didn't tell the cops she was assaulted, therefore, she wasn't." Nope. That does not mean that every single time.

Again, it is very clear that the cops were treating this sports "hero" with kid gloves. He had alcohol breath, refused a breathalyzer, and instead of taking him to the station to draw blood, "hey, whatevs, ya didn't kill anyone on the road, we'll give you a ride home."

Yeah, cause that happens to everybody. It is possible that because of how they treated him is why she didn't tell them that night, while all of them were standing there.

But no, it's because she was "drunk and unstable". If she's that drunk, she cannot consent. If she's that unstable, she cannot consent.

The video plainly shows, very clearly, that she is resisting him pulling her back into the room. He had no right to pull her back in the room. If she's so damn drunk and unstable, he should have contacted the police to help him.
The video is very incriminating in my mind. The explanation that he was just helping a "crazy" woman are not reasonable or credible. Honestly, there's a chance I wouldn't vote to convict, but don't tell me he wasn't at least attempting to use force to have sex against her will and that he didn't get preferential treatment A to Z.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:29 PM
 
13,114 posts, read 4,032,749 times
Reputation: 3934
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Proof?
The OJ Simpson case is one of the most well known examples. There are many other examples, but you reject the OJ Simpson one so it would be like proving the earth is round or the moon landing happened to a denier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:31 PM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,611 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The OJ Simpson case is one of the most well known examples. There are many other examples, but you reject the OJ Simpson one so it would be like proving the earth is round or the moon landing happened to a denier.
Hmm, just as I thought.

So you make such a blanket statement based on one named case?

What are these "many other examples?"

But enough about me. You made a claim and are continuing to stick by it without supplying adequate evidence to support. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Out West
23,032 posts, read 17,049,411 times
Reputation: 26627
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Except, I don't think anyone is saying that (I'm certainly not). We are merely posing plausible hypothetical situations (without knowing the full extent of the evidence) to show that it is not inconceivable for a jury to rule as this one did when presented with all of the facts. At least for the "unstable" part, which is a line I started if memory serves me correctly in this thread.
If she's that drunk, she cannot consent. If she's that unstable, she cannot consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:41 PM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,611 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
If she's that drunk, she cannot consent. If she's that unstable, she cannot consent.
While drunk I'd agree with you (of course, there's a whole different discussion about criminality if both parties were intoxicated).

As for being unstable, it all depends on the when this moment of instability came about. But this is why I specifically mentioned "perhaps only temporarily unstable" in my first post regarding such a hypothetical. Your position would assume that--under my hypothetical--the woman became manic/unstable before sexual activity began and was finished. I've seen completely calm people go into instant fits of rage/disgust over something they heard or saw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:42 PM
 
13,107 posts, read 10,136,943 times
Reputation: 16635
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The video is very incriminating in my mind. The explanation that he was just helping a "crazy" woman are not reasonable or credible. Honestly, there's a chance I wouldn't vote to convict, but don't tell me he wasn't at least attempting to use force to have sex against her will and that he didn't get preferential treatment A to Z.
Can you please explain the bolded wrt the highlighted? Is there a reason that both of those things can be true?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top