Kobe case decision threatens all women

[s_knight8]

http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html

The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut. Or better yet, believing she
won't have the stomach for the public scrutiny, they think she'll drop the
case.

Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit. We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.

The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."

So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.

Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team. Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.

Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.

It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.

I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night. Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife. I do know, however, that
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.

If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

[brink]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut. Or better yet, believing she
won't have the stomach for the public scrutiny, they think she'll drop the
case.
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit. We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.

this of course is a strawman argument; it's *not* the reason that her recent
(within 3 days) sexual should be or was included.

it's just as much a strawman argument as "kobe's case threatens all black
people because it's yet another example of the system singling out
minorities."

[catchmerevisited]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut. Or better yet, believing she
won't have the stomach for the public scrutiny, they think she'll drop the
case.
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit. We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team. Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night. Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife. I do know, however, that
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

It appears that the only people who know of a certainty the events that
transpired between Kobe and his accuser, are themselves.
I note you already drew your own conclusions; mine are yet undetermined.
I do note that the courts aren't quite so prone as they were a decade
ago to buy blindly into blindly discriminating against males. This gives
me hope that the Judge will then decide impartially whether in fact this
woman was victim.
I understand there was an indication of semen on her from some other
guy, and which occurred three days after the alleged rape which is the
issue of contention.
It is my opinion that three days after being the alleged victim of a
rape, is a little soon for women to engage in consensual sex. I am a
little disapointed the Judge dismissed the evidence, but see some hope
that her deffered to the Juries' decision.

[howldog]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:35:00 GMT, catchmerevisited

Post by catchmerevisited
It appears that the only people who know of a certainty the events that
transpired between Kobe and his accuser, are themselves.
I note you already drew your own conclusions; mine are yet undetermined.
I do note that the courts aren't quite so prone as they were a decade
ago to buy blindly into blindly discriminating against males.

Partially because of all the cases of false accusations by females.
Stupid attention-getting stunts like that girl in Wisconsin recently,
who faked her own abduction, all these sorts of things might be slowly
entering into society's judgement, that just because a woman says she
was raped, doesnt automatically mean she was.

which is terrible for all the women who actually ARE raped.

more one bad apple ruining it for the whole bunch stuff.

[Bob]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut. Or better yet, believing she
won't have the stomach for the public scrutiny, they think she'll drop the
case.

The mass hysterical that is the misandry behind the Kobe case threatens
all men.

Post by s_knight8
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit.

Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Post by s_knight8
We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.

We've heard all the accusations. She cried, she begged, she whined, she
accused, she got so horny she had to go out and fuck some guy she met at
a bar afterwards.

Post by s_knight8
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."

She didn't say "no," according to what she told the Sheriff.

Post by s_knight8
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant."

Which is based on misandry and designed to terrorize and persecute men
and send men off to concentration camps.

Post by s_knight8
It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press

It is designed to ensure that the victim has no chance to defend himself.

Post by s_knight8
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.

It encourages the evil SS Gestapo to round up many more innocent men. It
encourages serial false rape accusers, and trivial false rape accusers.

Post by s_knight8
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team. Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.

Indeed, the misandry of serial false rape accusation for money is
rampant. It's shameful and shocking, and fueled on anti-men hate.

Post by s_knight8
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.

They should have been reluctant to go to parties and fuck the whole
team. Decent women would have been home with a chaperone.

Post by s_knight8
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.

It means that false accusations are not prosecuted because of the
horrible anti-men hysteria that rages out of control. It is far worse
than the witch hunts of the middle ages.

Post by s_knight8
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night. Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife. I do know, however, that
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.

If we believe Mx. Faber, there was no crime committed until she fallacy
cried "rape" and the bigoted sheriff tried to hang a black man.

Post by s_knight8
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

If writers push out that kind of misandry the hysterical continues on
and on. Shame on them all.

Colorado -- the HATE state.


Storm the Bastille. Break out Lady G. She has a TON of work to do.


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, misandrist 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.]

[tjab]

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's only
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to give
it to me.

[Bob]

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's only
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to give
it to me.

Uh, no. Armed robbery is a crime beause you threatten someone with a
gun and take the cash. Gun... cash... Get it...


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, misandrist 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.]

[C The Shocker]

Post by Bob

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's only
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to give
it to me.

Uh, no. Armed robbery is a crime beause you threatten someone with a
gun and take the cash. Gun... cash... Get it...

Hey Bob, if a guy sodomized you against your will, would that be rape?

[Bob]

Post by C The Shocker

Post by Bob

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's

only

Post by Bob

Post by tjab
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to

give

Post by Bob

Post by tjab
it to me.

Uh, no. Armed robbery is a crime beause you threatten someone with a
gun and take the cash. Gun... cash... Get it...

Hey Bob, if a guy sodomized you against your will, would that be rape?

That would be sodomy, dimwit. Gawd these freaks are dense.

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, misandrist 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.]

[C The Shocker]

Post by Bob

Post by C The Shocker

Post by Bob

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's

only

Post by Bob

Post by tjab
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to

give

Post by Bob

Post by tjab
it to me.

Uh, no. Armed robbery is a crime beause you threatten someone with a
gun and take the cash. Gun... cash... Get it...

Hey Bob, if a guy sodomized you against your will, would that be rape?

That would be sodomy, dimwit. Gawd these freaks are dense.

You didn't answer the question.

[Paul Schneider]

Post by C The Shocker

Post by Bob
Uh, no. Armed robbery is a crime beause you threatten someone with a
gun and take the cash. Gun... cash... Get it...

Hey Bob, if a guy sodomized you against your will, would that be rape?

Technically no. You would have assaulted Bob but you could never rape
him. Rape is reserved strictly for women.

[Bryan S. Slick]

[Paul Schneider (***@yahoo.com)]
[26 Jul 2004 16:43:19 -0700]

:> > Uh, no. Armed robbery is a crime beause you threatten someone with a
:> > gun and take the cash. Gun... cash... Get it...
:>
:> Hey Bob, if a guy sodomized you against your will, would that be rape?
:
:Technically no. You would have assaulted Bob but you could never rape
:him. Rape is reserved strictly for women.

Wow.

rape1 P Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially
sexual intercourse.

[Paul Schneider]

Post by Bryan S. Slick
Wow.
rape1 P Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially
sexual intercourse.

This is from a Legal dictionary? Unless the laws have recently
changed, it is impossible to rape a man. Attacks on males are
considered assault.

[tjab]

Post by Paul Schneider

Post by Bryan S. Slick
Wow.
rape1 P Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially
sexual intercourse.

This is from a Legal dictionary? Unless the laws have recently
changed, it is impossible to rape a man. Attacks on males are
considered assault.

Gender wouldn't be relevant in Colorado, since they don't call it rape
but sexual assault, regardless of gender. And for the record:

(6) "Sexual penetration" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio,
analingus, or anal intercourse. Emission need not be proved as an element
of any sexual penetration. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the crime.

[Robert N. Lee]

Post by tjab
(6) "Sexual penetration" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus,
fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse.

Oh, man. I'd better not carry on my nocturnal career as the "Rim Job
Bandit" in Colorado, then.

--Robert

[catchmerevisited]

Post by C The Shocker

Post by Bob

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's

only

Post by Bob

Post by tjab
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to

give

Post by Bob

Post by tjab
it to me.

Uh, no. Armed robbery is a crime beause you threatten someone with a
gun and take the cash. Gun... cash... Get it...

Hey Bob, if a guy sodomized you against your will, would that be rape?

that would depend on whether he calls it "will"?

[Bugs]

Post by C The Shocker
Hey Bob, if a guy sodomized you against your will, would that be rape?

I believe in this day and age if women are going to make accusations
of rape (and I am not saying they are lying), they should not be
shielded. I think it would stop a lot of the FALSE rape accusations.
It's easy for a woman to accuse a guy of rape while her identity stays
hidden but his life, guilty or not, is ruined for life.

Women want equal rights, they should demand the equal treatment in
this matter they want everywhere else.

What's the big deal? How many women are virgins these days anyway?

[yaffaDina]

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's only
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to give
it to me.

And far would he go with the case if he had to *prove* that he didn't
want to give it to you -- after all, he buys presents for people and
gives money to people, why would violence and the threat of violence
make a difference, especially if he had voluntarily given money just the
day, or two days, or three days before, and if he actually went to the
bank and gave more money away the day after he had given it to you.
Really! No such thing as mugging, is there?
yD

[Lee]

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's only
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to give
it to me.

Nonsense.

If I observe a person stick a gun in someones face, and the
perpetrator then receives money, it is a crime - for the simple fact
that it was under threat of mortal injury.

You could ask the person later and they could say 'Oh I was giving the
money to a friend' - but threatening someone with a gun is of itself a
crime.

Moral relativism is, at best, self-destructive to society.

This is an observable, objective act - one that a reasonable person
would conclude is robbery.

There is no he said she said.
Gun in face of stranger = crime.
Woman says rape man says consentual = jury decides.

The Law used to aspire to rationality and objectivity.

If we prosecute based upon feelings alone, madness will ensue - much
like the current CS & Family Court systems.

'I felt afraid...' is an evidencary statement at custody hearings.

Lee

[catchmerevisited]

Post by Lee

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's only
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to give
it to me.

Nonsense.
If I observe a person stick a gun in someones face, and the
perpetrator then receives money, it is a crime - for the simple fact
that it was under threat of mortal injury.
You could ask the person later and they could say 'Oh I was giving the
money to a friend' - but threatening someone with a gun is of itself a
crime.
Moral relativism is, at best, self-destructive to society.
This is an observable, objective act - one that a reasonable person
would conclude is robbery.
There is no he said she said.
Gun in face of stranger = crime.
Woman says rape man says consentual = jury decides.
The Law used to aspire to rationality and objectivity.
If we prosecute based upon feelings alone, madness will ensue - much
like the current CS & Family Court systems.
'I felt afraid...' is an evidencary statement at custody hearings.
Lee

one might look at it from the angle that a gun is proof of intent to commit;
a penis isn't.
Because a penis is a multi-purpose instrument (a gun has but one purpose- to
fire a bullet with the intent on assaulting a target), the Judge and Jury
must determine what was the intent?
Was the use of same, criminal in nature or was there consent?
FEAR often enough, is False Evidence Appearing Real.

[tjab]

Post by Lee

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
Rape is the only crime where the alleged "crime" is based on the
"victim's" feelings.

Not so. If I point a gun at you and relieve you of all your cash, it's only
a crime based on your (the "victim's") feeling that you didn't want to give
it to me.

Nonsense.
If I observe a person stick a gun in someones face, and the
perpetrator then receives money, it is a crime - for the simple fact
that it was under threat of mortal injury.
You could ask the person later and they could say 'Oh I was giving the
money to a friend' - but threatening someone with a gun is of itself a
crime.
Moral relativism is, at best, self-destructive to society.
This is an observable, objective act - one that a reasonable person
would conclude is robbery.
There is no he said she said.
Gun in face of stranger = crime.

Gun in face of an acquaintance is not?! Suppose there was no
gun. Suppose I just put my arm around Bob's neck, stuck my
hand in his pocket, and took his money.

Suppose no one else witnessed the gun in Bob's face. Should
he (as he suggests) be barred from bringing a claim because
he can't prove it? If I say, there was no gun, he told me to
go ahead and take the money and regretted it later?

[Bob]

Post by tjab
Suppose no one else witnessed the gun in Bob's face. Should
he (as he suggests) be barred from bringing a claim because
he can't prove it?

That is generally the situation in every court except when a female
cries "RAPE!!!"

In Islamic countries where they don't have feminism, a woman crying
"rape" is also pleading guilty to adultery which is a serious crime.

Western countries could learn a lot from other religious values.

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, misandrist 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.]

[tjab]

Post by Bob
In Islamic countries where they don't have feminism, a woman crying
"rape" is also pleading guilty to adultery which is a serious crime.
Western countries could learn a lot from other religious values.

Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

[Bob]

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
In Islamic countries where they don't have feminism, a woman crying
"rape" is also pleading guilty to adultery which is a serious crime.
Western countries could learn a lot from other religious values.

Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

Great comment, Eva Braun.

Bob

[Sports Fan]

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
In Islamic countries where they don't have feminism, a woman crying
"rape" is also pleading guilty to adultery which is a serious crime.
Western countries could learn a lot from other religious values.

Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

I usually avoid any political bullshit, but this really crazy.

Why don't you, obnoxious feminist douche bag, get a clue before you open
your mouth?

Seeing the phrase "religious values" makes you automatically call
someone a terrorist supporter?
Get a life, idiot.

[tjab]

Post by Sports Fan

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
In Islamic countries where they don't have feminism, a woman crying
"rape" is also pleading guilty to adultery which is a serious crime.
Western countries could learn a lot from other religious values.

Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

I usually avoid any political bullshit, but this really crazy.
Why don't you, obnoxious feminist douche bag, get a clue before you open
your mouth?
Seeing the phrase "religious values" makes you automatically call
someone a terrorist supporter?

If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

Post by Sports Fan
Get a life, idiot.

[Steve Sullivan]

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

No, not everyone woman who alleges rape is an adultery. Some are.
Katelyn Faber is. She admits it was her intent to get with a married
man. That makes her just as much an adultery (with regards to the
consentual kissing between her and the alleged rapist).

[Bob]

Post by Steve Sullivan

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

No, not everyone woman who alleges rape is an adultery. Some are.
Katelyn Faber is. She admits it was her intent to get with a married
man. That makes her just as much an adultery (with regards to the
consentual kissing between her and the alleged rapist).

Moral values regarding rape, the burden of proof, the crime of adultery,
and all are quite different in countries run by men than they are here
where the feminist rape-hate industry writes the law. In Islamic
countries Faber would need to be stoned to death by her admissions.

http://www.steinigung.org/artikel/sharia_adultery_rape.htm

Faber is getting off damn lucky to live in such a feminist country where
her sins go unpunished.

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, misandrist 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.]

[tjab]

Post by Steve Sullivan

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

No, not everyone woman who alleges rape is an adultery. Some are.
Katelyn Faber is. She admits it was her intent to get with a married
man. That makes her just as much an adultery (with regards to the
consentual kissing between her and the alleged rapist).

What makes you so sure she knew he was married?

(BTW, kissing isn't adultery. Your spouse might be pissed,
but it's not adultery. Also btw, the term is you're looking
for is adulterer.)

[Sports Fan]

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

Typical idiot.
When caught posting bullshit, all you get out of her is accusations that
we all missed what she posted.
You are a fucking disgrace to women to humanity.

[tjab]

Post by Sports Fan

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

Typical idiot.
When caught posting bullshit, all you get out of her is accusations that
we all missed what she posted.
You are a fucking disgrace to women to humanity.

This from someone who calls stoning a married woman to death if
she gets raped a "religious value."

[Sports Fan]

Post by tjab

Post by Sports Fan

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

Typical idiot.
When caught posting bullshit, all you get out of her is accusations that
we all missed what she posted.
You are a fucking disgrace to women to humanity.

This from someone who calls stoning a married woman to death if
she gets raped a "religious value."

Any proof to this new bullshit of yours?
I'll save you making that one up, as usual.

No moron, it wasn't me.
I commented on your accusations to someone else of being a terrorist
supporter just because you saw the religious value phrase in his post,
no matter what was the context of the thread,

But your lies are well documented, including accusing me of being
unaware of a basic right of a defendant while basing your entire
bullshit on a harmless remark.

You lying retarded feminist asswipe.

[tjab]

Post by Sports Fan

Post by tjab

Post by Sports Fan

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

Typical idiot.
When caught posting bullshit, all you get out of her is accusations that
we all missed what she posted.
You are a fucking disgrace to women to humanity.

This from someone who calls stoning a married woman to death if
she gets raped a "religious value."

Any proof to this new bullshit of yours?
I'll save you making that one up, as usual.

You already did.

[Sports Fan]

Post by tjab

Post by Sports Fan

Post by tjab

Post by Sports Fan

Post by tjab
If the "religious values" include charging any woman who alleges rape
with adultery, yes. Sad to say, you probably miss the irony in the
fact that you can fail to understand that and yet still say

Typical idiot.
When caught posting bullshit, all you get out of her is accusations that
we all missed what she posted.
You are a fucking disgrace to women to humanity.

This from someone who calls stoning a married woman to death if
she gets raped a "religious value."

Any proof to this new bullshit of yours?
I'll save you making that one up, as usual.

You already did.

Translation: I posted another bullshit lie, got my sorry feminist man
hating ass kicked for it.

Thank you for admitting that you lied, again.

[catchmerevisited]

Post by tjab

Post by Bob
In Islamic countries where they don't have feminism, a woman crying
"rape" is also pleading guilty to adultery which is a serious crime.
Western countries could learn a lot from other religious values.

Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

Two conflicting Liberal Values:
Freedom FROM discrimination on basis of gender
Freedom FROM discrimination on basis of Religion

somehow doesn't apply to Western Beliefs, v. those of Islam.

[howldog]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

[tjab]

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

[Sylvester & Tweety]

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

[tjab]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

Whatever you want it to count for with you, whatever anyone else
wants it to count for with them. The latter part seems to have you
worried, btw. That alone is enough to make it worth my while.

[Jabba the Chandler]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.

I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors, and when called
out to cite or retract, posts a bunch of links without reading them.
When that error is pointed out to you, you vanish for a month and then
try to cut and ignore the evidence.

Certainly this is no crime, and not even that unusual in a usenet
discussion. I only mention it here because you were hypocritical
enough to be casting stones at other people's reputations.

-jabba

[Sylvester & Tweety]

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"

Hah...that's a good one.

Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

[Jabba the Chandler]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor that Syria now has the WMDs we
couldn't find in Iraq.

Rumors that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction
have currently killed between 11 and 13 THOUSAND civilians.

Of course, it's your right to be an asshole, just as it's my right to
call you on it.

--
jabba the chandler
Citizen of the Empire

[Sylvester & Tweety]

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor

Dangerous how, exactly?

Post by Jabba the Chandler
that Syria now has the WMDs we

I'ts not a rumor, it's analysis.

A tractor-trailer truck entered Jordan from Syria with Sarin and VX.
This is known historical fact.

Post by Jabba the Chandler
couldn't find in Iraq.

All those truck convoys from Iraq to Syria just before the invasion...

Post by Jabba the Chandler
Rumors that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda

Known FACT -- evidence provided by SEVERAL newspapers in Britain
who have been consistantly anti-Bush.

Post by Jabba the Chandler
and Weapons of Mass Destruction
have currently killed between 11 and 13 THOUSAND civilians.

Talk to the Kurds and the Iranians about your fairy-tale that Hussein
never got his hands on chemical weapons.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=26

Post by Jabba the Chandler
Of course, it's your right to be an asshole, just as it's my right to
call you on it.

I'm only an "asshole" to pathological liars such as yourself.

[Jabba the Chandler]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor

Dangerous how, exactly?

What kind of asshole snips people's sentences in two and then asks
stupid questions that would be answered if he read to the period???

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler
that Syria now has the WMDs we

I'ts not a rumor, it's analysis.

It's barely even a rumor.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
A tractor-trailer truck entered Jordan from Syria with Sarin and VX.
This is known historical fact.

This is a ridiculous lie which has been demonstrated by your very own
self.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler
couldn't find in Iraq.

All those truck convoys from Iraq to Syria just before the invasion...

Yeah, I'd like to see some cites on this one too.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler
Rumors that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda

Known FACT -- evidence provided by SEVERAL newspapers in Britain
who have been consistantly anti-Bush.

Known FALSEHOOD -- pick up a copy of the 9/11 Commision report.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler
and Weapons of Mass Destruction
have currently killed between 11 and 13 THOUSAND civilians.

Talk to the Kurds and the Iranians about your fairy-tale that Hussein
never got his hands on chemical weapons.

Until now I figured you were just stupid, but this makes me think you
are actually malicious.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler
Of course, it's your right to be an asshole, just as it's my right to
call you on it.

I'm only an "asshole" to pathological liars such as yourself.

No dude, you are an asshole through and through.

--
jabba the chandler
Citizen of the Empire

[Larry Coon]

Post by Jabba the Chandler
What kind of asshole snips people's sentences in two

Yeah!


Larry Coon
University of California

The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

[Sylvester & Tweety]

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor

Dangerous how, exactly?

What kind of asshole snips people's sentences in two and then asks
stupid questions that would be answered if he read to the period???

Note that Chandler is trying to sidetrack the discussion away from the
FACT that a truck from Syria broke down, with HUNDREDS of GALLONS of
SARIN and VX in the back.

[tjab]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor

Dangerous how, exactly?

What kind of asshole snips people's sentences in two and then asks
stupid questions that would be answered if he read to the period???

Note that Chandler is trying to sidetrack the discussion away from the
FACT that a truck from Syria broke down, with HUNDREDS of GALLONS of
SARIN and VX in the back.

Post a source for this.

[Sylvester & Tweety]

Post by tjab

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor

Dangerous how, exactly?

What kind of asshole snips people's sentences in two and then asks
stupid questions that would be answered if he read to the period???

Note that Chandler is trying to sidetrack the discussion away from the
FACT that a truck from Syria broke down, with HUNDREDS of GALLONS of
SARIN and VX in the back.

Post a source for this.

They were posted already, and you know it
Now sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

[tjab]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor

Dangerous how, exactly?

What kind of asshole snips people's sentences in two and then asks
stupid questions that would be answered if he read to the period???

Note that Chandler is trying to sidetrack the discussion away from the
FACT that a truck from Syria broke down, with HUNDREDS of GALLONS of
SARIN and VX in the back.

Post a source for this.

They were posted already, and you know it

I know they weren't and so does anyone else who actually
looked up the urls you posted.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
Now sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

No.

[Jabba the Chandler]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by Jabba the Chandler

Post by Sylvester & Tweety

Post by tjab

Post by howldog

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

I believe the defense wants to introduce doubt to the accusation.
Thats ocnsiderably different than asking what you said.

You may believe that. You *might* even be right. But I doubt it.

But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

More than yours, that's for sure.
I mean, you're a person who posts dangerous rumors,

"Dangerous rumors"
Hah...that's a good one.
Are these rumors capable of killing less than, or more than 20 people?

You passed on a dangerous rumor

Dangerous how, exactly?

What kind of asshole snips people's sentences in two and then asks
stupid questions that would be answered if he read to the period???

Note that Chandler is trying to sidetrack the discussion away from the
FACT that a truck from Syria broke down, with HUNDREDS of GALLONS of
SARIN and VX in the back.

Post a source for this.

They were posted already,

The links you posted prove you wrong -- and I'm more than happy to
keep pointing it out to you. There was no truck, there was no Sarin,
there was no VX. The guys who got caught had money to buy chemicals to
make a bomb.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
and you know it

The links you posted proved you wrong. You are lying, or have been
deceived, or both.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
Now sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

Or what, you silly prick?

--
jabba

[Sports Fan]

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...

Most of us agree on this.

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
so your opinion counts for what, exactly?

Nothing but bullshit, she adds nothing, except demonstrating how
troubled a sad and a lonely feminist can be.

[tjab]

Post by Sports Fan

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...

Most of us agree on this.

Us?

[Sports Fan]

Post by Sports Fan

Post by Sylvester & Tweety
But in a year's full of postings, tjab, you have yet to write a
single thing that would indicate to anyone that you have any
capacity for thought...

Most of us agree on this.

Us?

Yes, the ones who disagree with your man hating feminist views and all
the bullshit you posted so far.

[jet]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut. Or better yet, believing she
won't have the stomach for the public scrutiny, they think she'll drop the
case.
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit. We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."

What if there isn't a "no"?

Post by s_knight8
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which

Except, apparently, California, where the travesty of the Haidl defense
went unchallenged.

Post by s_knight8
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team. Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night. Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife. I do know, however, that
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

The Kobe decision only threatens women who reply on rape shield laws
to prevent a defendent presenting a defense. Past sexual history is
irrelevent to the crime. Being able to challenge the actions and
credibility of the statements of a witness that are directly related to
the crime, is relevent andessential to a defense. Without that ability, a
man's sole defense is "I didn't do it".

and ya know something? I'm a woman and I don't think women are as
weak and scared as lawmakers and rape counselors think. Some are,
sure, but not all women are intimidated by the idea of some asshole
defense attorney calling them a slut.


so there

[greg brown]

Post by jet

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html

and ya know something? I'm a woman and I don't think women are as
weak and scared as lawmakers and rape counselors think. Some are,
sure, but not all women are intimidated by the idea of some asshole
defense attorney calling them a slut.
so there

Well said.

Greg

[bonehead]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

Oh, hang on just a second here. The prosecution wants us to believe that
the case starts when she knocked on his door and ends when she left his
room. The defense is saying that no human encounter happens in a vacuum,
especially one like this.

If she actually did fuck a couple of other guys within just a couple of
days of fucking Kobe, and then fucked *another* guy *after* fucking Kobe
but *before* going to the cops, that's absolutely relevant.

You probably know the story of how Wilt Chamberlin bragged (or
confessed, depending on how you look at it), that he'd had sex with at
least 5000 women. It's probably true, but that doesn't make him a
predator. It means that there are thousands of women out there who want
to fuck a 7-foot-tall black guy, especially if he's rich and famous.

Rape shield laws are written by feminists and are based on the
fundamental feminist philosophy that men are presumed to be predators
and women are presumed to be completely innocent victims. But famous
athletes get women totally throwing themselves at them all the time, and
there is no law written to protect them against flaky malicious
accusers. That's not equality or justice. It's tyranny.

[Bryan S. Slick]

[bonehead (***@here.org)]
[Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:51:56 -0700]

:Rape shield laws are written by feminists and are based on the
:fundamental feminist philosophy that men are presumed to be predators
:and women are presumed to be completely innocent victims.

At least your posting name fits your writing, that's what I say.

[bonehead]

Post by Bryan S. Slick
At least your posting name fits your writing, that's what I say.

I still think Chuck Berry had the right idea. Back in the '50s he had
beautiful white girls just totally throwing themselves at him all the
time. And in those days, a black guy accused by a white woman of sexual
misconduct might as well have just shot himself or jumped out a window.

So Chuck had one of the first Polaroid cameras, which he had set on a
tripod. Anytime a white woman came to his dressing room begging to fuck
him, the first thing he said was, "Okay girl, first you have to take off
all your clothes and throw your arms around me and smile for the camera.
Then you have to sign and date this photo."

As far as I know, Chuck Berry never got accused of rape.

[catchmerevisited]

Post by bonehead

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

Oh, hang on just a second here. The prosecution wants us to believe that
the case starts when she knocked on his door and ends when she left his
room. The defense is saying that no human encounter happens in a vacuum,
especially one like this.
If she actually did fuck a couple of other guys within just a couple of
days of fucking Kobe, and then fucked *another* guy *after* fucking Kobe
but *before* going to the cops, that's absolutely relevant.
You probably know the story of how Wilt Chamberlin bragged (or
confessed, depending on how you look at it), that he'd had sex with at
least 5000 women. It's probably true, but that doesn't make him a
predator. It means that there are thousands of women out there who want
to fuck a 7-foot-tall black guy, especially if he's rich and famous.
Rape shield laws are written by feminists and are based on the
fundamental feminist philosophy that men are presumed to be predators
and women are presumed to be completely innocent victims. But famous
athletes get women totally throwing themselves at them all the time, and
there is no law written to protect them against flaky malicious
accusers. That's not equality or justice. It's tyranny.

I think the time for these shields has passed; I believe that people have
the ability to judge for themselves (as in a Judge or Jury) where a lawyer
representing either side pursues an ovelry malicious tack in attempting to
discredit a witness.
That one side hides behind the shield, while another is frustrated by it
sees an inevitable outcome: that in the context of Canadian Criminal Law, a
defendent is deprived of his Right "to the best defence".

[Susan O'Malley]

Al Sharpton + DemoKKK-Rats = Free Murderers + Free Rapists + Free Welfare

Middle- and upper-class Blacks correctly ask, What have racist
DemoKKK-Rats Al "Lying Tawana Brawlee" Sharpton and Jesse "Scared of
Black Thugs Walking Behind Me" Jackson done for me lately?

The facts are the facts:

+ the worst school districts are owned and operated by racist
DemoKKK-Rats

+ the worst crime-infested cities are owned and operated by racist
DemoKKK-Rats

Do not be fooled by the Oreo Obama "Supports Osama Arab Terrorists"!

Kristof, Nicholas D. "Bush Points the Way." The New York Times. 29 May
2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/opinion/29KRIS.html?ex=1088425150&ei=1&
en=f1a11285caa00a43

Power, Samantha. "Remember Rwanda, but Take Action in Sudan." The New
York Times. 6 April 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/opinion/06POWE.html?ex=1088425127&ei=1&
en=73052cf9b2f5e5b1

Racist John Kerry and his racist DemoKKK-Rats are dissing blacks like
National Security Adviser Dr. Condaleezza Rice and U.S. Secretary of
State Colin L Powell because they only want to see unqualified
Step-n-Fetchits in low-level positions at the "White" House.

Racist John Kerry and his racist DemoKKK-Rats only want unqualified
whites like Sandy "National Archives Burglar" Berger.

Racist John Kerry and his racist DemoKKK-Rats are anti-Christs who only
want to see a world where muslims behead, murder, rape, and pillage
Africans in Sudan and terrorize the rest of the world.

http://www.truthandgrace.com/ISLAM.htm

http://www.honestreporting.com

http://www.allahislam.com

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut. Or better yet, believing she
won't have the stomach for the public scrutiny, they think she'll drop the
case.
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit. We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team. Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night. Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife. I do know, however, that
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

[John]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut. Or better yet, believing she
won't have the stomach for the public scrutiny, they think she'll drop the
case.
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit. We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team. Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night. Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife. I do know, however, that
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

But most rape victims, unlike Kate Faber, dont have sex with TWO more
men in the short period of two days after allegedly being raped.

[Chas]

Post by John
But most rape victims, unlike Kate Faber, dont have sex with TWO more
men in the short period of two days after allegedly being raped.

an interesting statistic, but irrelevant to the instant case.
I know you guys are casting about for 'reasonable doubt' with all your
collective hearts, but stats aren't facts, they're indicators of
generalities. The exception is just as valid as the rule, as regards
criminal culpability for a sexual assault.
One might as easily say; if she was consenting, why did she ultimately say
'no', and he stopped immediately? All that means is that he stopped the
assault in progress- it might mitigate the severity of the assault, but it's
still assault.

Chas

[catchmerevisited]

Post by Chas

Post by John
But most rape victims, unlike Kate Faber, dont have sex with TWO more
men in the short period of two days after allegedly being raped.

an interesting statistic, but irrelevant to the instant case.
I know you guys are casting about for 'reasonable doubt' with all your
collective hearts, but stats aren't facts, they're indicators of
generalities. The exception is just as valid as the rule, as regards
criminal culpability for a sexual assault.
One might as easily say; if she was consenting, why did she ultimately say
'no', and he stopped immediately? All that means is that he stopped the
assault in progress- it might mitigate the severity of the assault, but it's
still assault.
Chas

I don't believe there is evidence to support the claim she insisted his
desistance.
Moreover, rape shield laws prevent the assumption of innocence in testing
the case, thus precluding the right of the accused to a fair trial (In
Canada the term is "Right to Best Defence")

[Chas]

Post by catchmerevisited
I don't believe there is evidence to support the claim she insisted his
desistance.

Then why didn't he finish?
His whole defense is that he stopped when she said no- halfway through the
assault.

Post by catchmerevisited
Moreover, rape shield laws prevent the assumption of innocence in testing
the case, thus precluding the right of the accused to a fair trial (In
Canada the term is "Right to Best Defence")

Only if you assume that a woman's prior sexual history has anything to do
with being raped or not. The accuser doesn't even seem to have a very
unusual history except to Mrs. Grundy. Her willingness to engage in
consensual sex would even tend to support her refusal to Kobe as regards her
reluctance to be assaulted in comparison to her assumed more common
acquiescence.

Chas

[catchmerevisited]

Post by Chas

Post by catchmerevisited
Moreover, rape shield laws prevent the assumption of innocence in testing
the case, thus precluding the right of the accused to a fair trial (In
Canada the term is "Right to Best Defence")

Only if you assume that a woman's prior sexual history has anything to do
with being raped or not. The accuser doesn't even seem to have a very
unusual history except to Mrs. Grundy. Her willingness to engage in
consensual sex would even tend to support her refusal to Kobe as regards her
reluctance to be assaulted in comparison to her assumed more common
acquiescence.
Chas

The issue of contention isn't her prior sexual history, but that which
occurred relatively soon AFTER- arguably there was no trauma, and therefore
nothing more than, in Canadian Legal terms, 'a frivoulous claim' (in and of
itself worthy to prosecute AGAINST the accuser).

[Chas]

Post by catchmerevisited
The issue of contention isn't her prior sexual history, but that which
occurred relatively soon AFTER- arguably there was no trauma, and therefore
nothing more than, in Canadian Legal terms, 'a frivoulous claim' (in and of
itself worthy to prosecute AGAINST the accuser).

The issue is whether she was assaulted in Kobe Bryant's room. He seems to
admit, and she states, that he pulled out when he became aware of her lack
of consent. That may be an incomplete assault, but ejaculation isn't a
prerequisite for sexual assault.
There is little assertion concerning direct violence- just intimidation and
physicality. She doesn't say he smacked her around, but then again, that's
not one of the prerequisites for sexual assault either.
Her bravado is completely understandable- what happens when you get bucked
off? You climb right back on.
And it isn't as uncommon as some would like to believe-

Chas

[catchmerevisited]

Post by catchmerevisited

Post by catchmerevisited
The issue of contention isn't her prior sexual history, but that which
occurred relatively soon AFTER- arguably there was no trauma, and

therefore

Post by catchmerevisited
nothing more than, in Canadian Legal terms, 'a frivoulous claim' (in and

of

Post by catchmerevisited
itself worthy to prosecute AGAINST the accuser).

The issue is whether she was assaulted in Kobe Bryant's room. He seems to
admit, and she states, that he pulled out when he became aware of her lack
of consent. That may be an incomplete assault, but ejaculation isn't a
prerequisite for sexual assault.
There is little assertion concerning direct violence- just intimidation and
physicality. She doesn't say he smacked her around, but then again, that's
not one of the prerequisites for sexual assault either.
Her bravado is completely understandable- what happens when you get bucked
off? You climb right back on.
And it isn't as uncommon as some would like to believe-
Chas

lol; if you get 'bucked off', that would indicate the horse doesn't consent.
If you 'get back on', you're assaulting the horse.

You seem to be saying that she bucked Kobe off, and he understood her
consent as cancelled, and walked away (likely to find another mount).

[Chas]

Post by catchmerevisited
lol; if you get 'bucked off', that would indicate the horse doesn't consent.
If you 'get back on', you're assaulting the horse.

luckily, that's not criminal.

Post by catchmerevisited
You seem to be saying that she bucked Kobe off, and he understood her
consent as cancelled, and walked away (likely to find another mount).

Maybe he jumped on when she was looking the other way, and now he's guilty
of assault and didn't even get to ride out his whole 8 seconds.

Chas

[catchmerevisited]

Post by Chas

Post by catchmerevisited
lol; if you get 'bucked off', that would indicate the horse doesn't

consent.

Post by catchmerevisited
If you 'get back on', you're assaulting the horse.

luckily, that's not criminal.

Post by catchmerevisited
You seem to be saying that she bucked Kobe off, and he understood her
consent as cancelled, and walked away (likely to find another mount).

Maybe he jumped on when she was looking the other way, and now he's guilty
of assault and didn't even get to ride out his whole 8 seconds.
Chas

there appears to be room for supposition on either side, likely for two
reasons:
1) we cannot know all the facts
2) their representives are likely to distort things in favour of their
clients (and if the US Attorney is anything like Canada's Crown Counsellor,
there is a heavy bias against the accused).
I believe either of us is likely to be right, or wrong.
It is also likely we both may be wrong.

[_ G O D _]

Post by catchmerevisited
there appears to be room for supposition on either side,
1) we cannot know all the facts
2) their representives are likely to distort things in favour
of their clients (and if the US Attorney is anything like Canada's
Crown Counsellor, there is a heavy bias against the accused).

...or against the accuser, depending on whose side the 'Crown'
is, which is usually on the *money* side.... But even if the money
clause would have been ignored, the basketball PLAYER would
have been playing for prestige of the Crown, which is invariably
being guarded and protected at all costs, lest interests of the
victim, whose side would have had to bare extremely extravagant
"court costs" payable to the defense of the accused ...

Post by catchmerevisited
I believe either of us is likely to be right, or wrong.
It is also likely we both may be wrong.

Right... But I suggest you to be more careful the next time you
mentioning how the Crown's Councellors in primitive political
and judicial system would have handled a trial between very
obviously UNEQUAL parties... Because in Crown's Courts,
there is no hope for accuser without money to win her case...
--
_____________________________________________________

I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--

[catchmerevisited]

Post by _ G O D _

Post by catchmerevisited
there appears to be room for supposition on either side,
1) we cannot know all the facts
2) their representives are likely to distort things in favour
of their clients (and if the US Attorney is anything like Canada's
Crown Counsellor, there is a heavy bias against the accused).

...or against the accuser, depending on whose side the 'Crown'
is, which is usually on the *money* side.... But even if the money
clause would have been ignored, the basketball PLAYER would
have been playing for prestige of the Crown, which is invariably
being guarded and protected at all costs, lest interests of the
victim, whose side would have had to bare extremely extravagant
"court costs" payable to the defense of the accused ...

Post by catchmerevisited
I believe either of us is likely to be right, or wrong.
It is also likely we both may be wrong.

Right... But I suggest you to be more careful the next time you
mentioning how the Crown's Councellors in primitive political
and judicial system would have handled a trial between very
obviously UNEQUAL parties... Because in Crown's Courts,
there is no hope for accuser without money to win her case...

Crown services is not paid by any of the participnats, but rather from
taxpayers dollars allocated to its operating Budget.

[John]

Post by Chas

Post by John
But most rape victims, unlike Kate Faber, dont have sex with TWO more
men in the short period of two days after allegedly being raped.

an interesting statistic, but irrelevant to the instant case.
I know you guys are casting about for 'reasonable doubt' with all your
collective hearts, but stats aren't facts, they're indicators of
generalities. The exception is just as valid as the rule, as regards
criminal culpability for a sexual assault.
One might as easily say; if she was consenting, why did she ultimately say
'no', and he stopped immediately? All that means is that he stopped the
assault in progress- it might mitigate the severity of the assault, but it's
still assault.
Chas

Im simply saying its behavior that puts the credibility of the accuser
at risk. Its behavior inconsistent with the many many data points of
bona fide victims of sexual assault. As are her bragging comments
regarding Kobe's equipment, later.

The picture that emerges is not that of an assault victim.

[Sylvester & Tweety]

Post by Chas

Post by John
But most rape victims, unlike Kate Faber, dont have sex with TWO more
men in the short period of two days after allegedly being raped.

an interesting statistic, but irrelevant to the instant case.
I know you guys are casting about for 'reasonable doubt'

This crosses from "reasonable" doubt to OVERWHELMING doubt.

[Greg]

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

Or perhaps they want the jury to hear all the evidence.

Post by s_knight8
Or better yet, believing she won't have the stomach for the public
scrutiny, they think she'll drop the case.

Secret trials and secret accusers are for police states. (By the way,
police states are bad.)

Post by s_knight8
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit.

Another being the murder of men by their wives. "He was abusing me.
I had to shoot him while he was sleeping. I was afraid." Of course,
he's not there to deny the accusation.

Post by s_knight8
We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight,
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.

I have not heard those rationales. The ones I've heard have more to
do with Kobe claiming he's innocent, and with Kobe being presumed
innocent, supposedly.

Post by s_knight8
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."

Does question begging substitute for argument at your paper? The very
question is whether she said no.

Post by s_knight8
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.

Well whaddya know. You try to send someone to prison for six years,
and they want to ask you some tough questions. Boo hoo.

Interesting choice of words, by the way.

Post by s_knight8
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team. Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.

Should we know that? Should we not also consider that the men may
actually be .... innocent? (shock horror)

Post by s_knight8
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.

It means you presume men guilty, like the bigot you are.

Post by s_knight8
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night.

I doubt you know much of anything.

Post by s_knight8
Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife. I do know, however, that
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.

We wouldn't have known anyway. It was he-said-she-said from go.

Post by s_knight8
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

If we presume famous men guilty in the name of political correctness,
all famous men are at risk. Indeed, if he'd been my client, he'd
never have been alone with a woman other than his wife, and only
because that's unavoidable.

[Paco]

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

But she is a slut!

Post by Greg
Or perhaps they want the jury to hear all the evidence.

Post by s_knight8
Or better yet, believing she won't have the stomach for the public
scrutiny, they think she'll drop the case.

Secret trials and secret accusers are for police states. (By the way,
police states are bad.)

Post by s_knight8
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit.

Another being the murder of men by their wives. "He was abusing me.
I had to shoot him while he was sleeping. I was afraid." Of course,
he's not there to deny the accusation.

Or mutilation of men by females like in the Bobbit case. That was
actually a murder but the victim didn't die. The bitch should have
received the death penalty instead of 2 weeks in a rest home. Maybe
some nice man will give her the death penalty as a warning to other
bitches who think they can get away with it.

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight

The question should be why are females wearing clothing like this.
They're doing it to attract men sexually.




,

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.

If you kiss a man you're consenting to sex. Don't want sex? Then keep
your hands and body to yourself and wear chaste clothing that doesn't
offend male decorum.

Post by Greg
I have not heard those rationales. The ones I've heard have more to
do with Kobe claiming he's innocent, and with Kobe being presumed
innocent, supposedly.

Post by s_knight8
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."

Does question begging substitute for argument at your paper? The very
question is whether she said no.

Post by s_knight8
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.

Well whaddya know. You try to send someone to prison for six years,
and they want to ask you some tough questions. Boo hoo.
Interesting choice of words, by the way.

Post by s_knight8
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team.

What were they doing with these men? Hmmmm Why were they with them?





Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.

Should we know that? Should we not also consider that the men may
actually be .... innocent? (shock horror)

Post by s_knight8
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.

It means you presume men guilty, like the bigot you are.

Post by s_knight8
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night.

I doubt you know much of anything.

Post by s_knight8
Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife.

Females always think "cheating " is important haha To them it's worse
than murder which shows how warped they really are.



I do know, however, that

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.

We wouldn't have known anyway. It was he-said-she-said from go.

Post by s_knight8
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

If we presume famous men guilty in the name of political correctness,
all famous men are at risk. Indeed, if he'd been my client, he'd
never have been alone with a woman other than his wife, and only
because that's unavoidable.

Didn't he buy his gold digger wife some presents to make up? All
females are Ho's

[Paco]

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

But she is a slut!

Post by Greg
Or perhaps they want the jury to hear all the evidence.

Post by s_knight8
Or better yet, believing she won't have the stomach for the public
scrutiny, they think she'll drop the case.

Secret trials and secret accusers are for police states. (By the way,
police states are bad.)

Post by s_knight8
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit.

Another being the murder of men by their wives. "He was abusing me.
I had to shoot him while he was sleeping. I was afraid." Of course,
he's not there to deny the accusation.

Or mutilation of men by females like in the Bobbit case. That was
actually a murder but the victim didn't die. The bitch should have
received the death penalty instead of 2 weeks in a rest home. Maybe
some nice man will give her the death penalty as a warning to other
bitches who think they can get away with it.

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight

The question should be why are females wearing clothing like this.
They're doing it to attract men sexually.




,

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.

If you kiss a man you're consenting to sex. Don't want sex? Then keep
your hands and body to yourself and wear chaste clothing that doesn't
offend male decorum.

Post by Greg
I have not heard those rationales. The ones I've heard have more to
do with Kobe claiming he's innocent, and with Kobe being presumed
innocent, supposedly.

Post by s_knight8
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."

Does question begging substitute for argument at your paper? The very
question is whether she said no.

Post by s_knight8
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.

Well whaddya know. You try to send someone to prison for six years,
and they want to ask you some tough questions. Boo hoo.
Interesting choice of words, by the way.

Post by s_knight8
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team.

What were they doing with these men? Hmmmm Why were they with them?





Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.

Should we know that? Should we not also consider that the men may
actually be .... innocent? (shock horror)

Post by s_knight8
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.

It means you presume men guilty, like the bigot you are.

Post by s_knight8
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night.

I doubt you know much of anything.

Post by s_knight8
Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife.

Females always think "cheating " is important haha To them it's worse
than murder which shows how warped they really are.



I do know, however, that

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.

We wouldn't have known anyway. It was he-said-she-said from go.

Post by s_knight8
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

If we presume famous men guilty in the name of political correctness,
all famous men are at risk. Indeed, if he'd been my client, he'd
never have been alone with a woman other than his wife, and only
because that's unavoidable.

Didn't he buy his gold digger wife some presents to make up? All
females are Ho's

[Paco]

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20040726/news/919349.html
The defense, in pushing for this ruling, wants the jury to believe that the
accuser wasn't raped because she's a slut.

But she is a slut!

Post by Greg
Or perhaps they want the jury to hear all the evidence.

Post by s_knight8
Or better yet, believing she won't have the stomach for the public
scrutiny, they think she'll drop the case.

Secret trials and secret accusers are for police states. (By the way,
police states are bad.)

Post by s_knight8
Rape is one of the only crimes that we excuse by turning the victim into the
culprit.

Another being the murder of men by their wives. "He was abusing me.
I had to shoot him while he was sleeping. I was afraid." Of course,
he's not there to deny the accusation.

Or mutilation of men by females like in the Bobbit case. That was
actually a murder but the victim didn't die. The bitch should have
received the death penalty instead of 2 weeks in a rest home. Maybe
some nice man will give her the death penalty as a warning to other
bitches who think they can get away with it.

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
We've all heard the rationale: He couldn't stop because she was too
flirtatious, too promiscuous, her skirt was too short, her pants too tight

The question should be why are females wearing clothing like this.
They're doing it to attract men sexually.




,

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
she touched him, she kissed him, she went to his hotel room.

If you kiss a man you're consenting to sex. Don't want sex? Then keep
your hands and body to yourself and wear chaste clothing that doesn't
offend male decorum.

Post by Greg
I have not heard those rationales. The ones I've heard have more to
do with Kobe claiming he's innocent, and with Kobe being presumed
innocent, supposedly.

Post by s_knight8
The din of excuses too often drowns out the "no."

Does question begging substitute for argument at your paper? The very
question is whether she said no.

Post by s_knight8
So Colorado has a rape-shield law -- just like every other state -- which
says a woman's sexual history is "presumptively irrelevant." It's designed
to protect the victim from humiliation, thus encouraging her to press
charges and participate in a trial. Without it, women suffer in silence, and
justice is emasculated.

Well whaddya know. You try to send someone to prison for six years,
and they want to ask you some tough questions. Boo hoo.
Interesting choice of words, by the way.

Post by s_knight8
Consider the second story on that Anchorage news page: the scandal at CU in
which nine women said they were raped by men associated with the football
team.

What were they doing with these men? Hmmmm Why were they with them?





Not one of those cases has seen the inside of a criminal court. In

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
May, Attorney General Ken Salazar decided against pressing charges. Some
would lead you to believe this meant nothing happened and the football
program was vindicated.
Instead, what we should know -- from experience and from Salazar's own
assessment -- is the women involved were reluctant to press charges. Already
victimized, they chose not to go through the degradation Bryant's accuser
now faces.

Should we know that? Should we not also consider that the men may
actually be .... innocent? (shock horror)

Post by s_knight8
It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means no one will pay for
it.

It means you presume men guilty, like the bigot you are.

Post by s_knight8
I don't know what happened in Bryant's room that night.

I doubt you know much of anything.

Post by s_knight8
Maybe, as he has
said, all he did that night was cheat on his wife.

Females always think "cheating " is important haha To them it's worse
than murder which shows how warped they really are.



I do know, however, that

Post by Greg

Post by s_knight8
Ruckriegle's decision moves us one step closer to never knowing.

We wouldn't have known anyway. It was he-said-she-said from go.

Post by s_knight8
If the attorneys and the judge and the fans who salivate at the feet of a
ball player bully this woman into silence, all women are put at greater
risk.

If we presume famous men guilty in the name of political correctness,
all famous men are at risk. Indeed, if he'd been my client, he'd
never have been alone with a woman other than his wife, and only
because that's unavoidable.

Didn't he buy his gold digger wife some presents to make up? All
females are Ho's