Ravishment University
THE UNIVERSITY => Ravishment, Forced Sex, and BDSM topics => Topic started by: Raymond Pist on January 02, 2007, 01:03:51 AM
-
If the episode of American Justice I just watched is to be believed, these are the facts in a case where a teenage boy is charged with two counts of rape.
In a small, wealthy town in Connecticut, rumor has it that a young troublemaker named Alex is a date-rapist. In spite of this, he remains one of the most popular boys in high school. Charming, good-looking, and athletic, Alex is the star of the wrestling team, and on weekends, can always be found at one of the rotating house parties that the parents of the community seem to condone, in spite of it being well known that these parties are unchaparoned havens for drug and alcohol indulgence by minors.
In spite of [or perhaps because of?] his reputation as a date-rapist, a girl from Alex's high school asks for, and receives, a ride home late at night from one such party. Shortly thereafter, Alex's dad gets a phone call from the girl's dad. "Control your son!" demands the upset father. "He just raped my daughter!" Waking and confronting his son with this accusation, young Alex manages to calm his dad down. "Relax, dad. We had sex. No big deal. Go back to bed." Alex's dad does just that.
Meanwhile, unsatisfied by this response, the girl's dad calls police, who arrest and interogate Alex. Since Alex steadfastly denies the charges, and since the girl needs more time to decide if she wants to pursue the case to a "he-said; she-said" trial (no physical evidence of rape was found), Alex is released.
FOUR DAYS LATER, at another party, another girl needs another ride home, and accepts a ride from none other than the now most famous alleged date-rapist in the entire small town. And she too accuses Alex of raping her. Police pounce, angry that they had let him go so easily the first time. This time, Alex is charged. His parents have no trouble covering the high bail, as well as hiring a high priced lawyer. Good thing, too, because NOW, the first girl also has decided to pile on, demanding that charges be filed in her case as well.
Over the Defense attorney's strongest objections, the court decides to "save time and money" by trying both cases together, in one trial, with one jury----a jury of SIX (also, presumably a cost-cutting measure). The defense attorney feels it is his duty to inform his client that he cannot expect a fair trial under these conditions. Alex, taking this under advisement, consults with his family, and decides to forfiet the bail, and embark on an extended European Vacation. By all accounts, Alex had a good time while on vacation.
Meanwhile, back in Connecticut, the Supreme Court bitch-slaps the original court: Hell no, you can't try two separate rape cases with one trial! Alex voluntarily returns home, looking forward to getting a fair trial and being cleared of all charges. With the support of his parents, and his long-time girlfriend by his side, the first trial begins.
The accuser insists, under oath, that she had no opportunity to flee from the Jeep SUV in which the rape took place, because from the moment the attack began, Alex the Evil Rapist held her by the throat with one hand at all times. Even while using his other hand to fold down the back seat of the SUV. But it turns out, that that can't be done with only one hand. At least one member of the jury is troubled by this lie. Hung Jury. Retrial.
At the retrial, the accuser is allowed to change her story, and say that he let go of her throat while folding down the rear seat. (Still offering no explaination as to why, for the sake of jesus H. christ on rollerblades did she not, er, decide to LEAVE during that time.) Still, the jury reaches a unanamous (6-person) verdict: Guilty.
Which means that at the NEXT trial, all the prosecution had to do was prosecute an already convicted rapist of committing the same crime against a similar victim 4 days later, using the same MO. No word on the details of that trial, but presumably, the accuser pointed at the convicted rapist, cried a little, lawyers on both sides just shrugged their shoulders, and the jury convicted on the spot, without feeling any need to leave the courtroom to deliberate.
Meanwhile, young Alex, struck down by rape accusations in the prime of his life, must suffer the same cruelly ironic fate as would any innocent man convicted of rape: serving the maximum sentence possible, since no remorse = no parole. And since there was no physical evidence, no one from The Innocence Project will be riding in on a white horse to prove that Alex is factually innocent of the crime for which he must wallow in prison.
The moral, if any, is if a young lady is ever in need of a ride home, FOR GOD'S SAKES MAN! DON'T GIVE IT TO HER!!!!
-
Hm. Well...I'd hesitate to paint him innocent, either.
I'd think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist, would be a little more alarmed upon being awakened in the middle of the night by allegations that he'd forced a girl.
I'd also think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist and who knows that he's being looked at for a previous rape, would try to avoid being alone with another young girl mere days later, much less having any form of sexual contact with her when it could be used against him.
I feel like I know this story, though...I'm pretty sure I've watched one of those movie-of-the-week types about it. Or else a very similar story, anyway.
-
Well, in the case, the law always say innocent until prven guilty.
As there are so much in doubt here, I believe he should be given a non guilty verdict. However, the above is not always applied. A lot is not said. As such, a lot is not known. Maybe there is more to the story then we know.
-
Yeah...we certainly can't pretend to know all of the details from just a summary.
-
In cases like this, the jury should always consider the possibility of getting it wrong, whether it is more serious to convict and innocent compared to freeing the guilty. For me the former is more serious, but of course it is up to ech of us to give our opinion
-
In cases like this, the jury should always consider the possibility of getting it wrong, whether it is more serious to convict and innocent compared to freeing the guilty. For me the former is more serious, but of course it is up to ech of us to give our opinion
I agree, and so does several hundred years of jurisprudence and common law.
That's why it (usually) takes 12 jurors to agree for a conviction, but only one to prevent a conviction.
--Ray
-
Yeah...we certainly can't pretend to know all of the details from just a summary.
I believe we will not know all the detail even if we were to witness the trial first hand. That's why in trials, jurors are kept from outside influence and all their information should be based 100% on what is going on in the court.
-
Hm. Well...I'd hesitate to paint him innocent, either.
I'd also think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist and who knows that he's being looked at for a previous rape, would try to avoid being alone with another young girl mere days later, much less having any form of sexual contact with her when it could be used against him.
Yes, but if this is true, then what about the flip-side of the coin?
Small High School, in a small town. EVERYONE had heard the rumors that he was a date-rapist.
Does a girl getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear SOME responsibility for whatever took place?
And then, AND THEN, Just 4 days later, when everyone has also heard that he's an accused rapist, who's been interogated by police on the matter,
does a girl, getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear STILL MORE responsibility for whatever took place?
ALSO, mix in the fact that this town is SOOOOOOO boring, that parents and police ALLOW the teens to indulge in drugs and alcohol at unchaparoned parties, is it completely out of the question that one (or both) of these girls conciously decided that they'd like to see what it would be like to be raped by a rich, good-looking, jock, and then, afterward, decided that rape wasn't as much fun as they thought it might be? 'm just askin'......
--Ray
-
Yes he's guilty! Now let him out so I can go on a date with him. And I'd better be satisfied! :emot_rotf.gif:
-
So many problems. Although the kid is spoiled scum-bag brat, I'd have trouble voting to convict based on the fact pattern presented!
(Alleged) Victim #1 was allowed to change her testimony? There's an appeal right there--not to mention the trial judge's first decision to combine the cases. That would have been done only with the consent of both prosecution and defence. And never as a cost-cutting measure.
Jury of 6? HUH?? Rape is a fellony! You need a 12-person jury. Jury of 6 is for misdemeanors, and not for economy of scale.
No evidence of penetration? There had better been good corroborative evidence.
There's no mention of torn clothing, wounds, or brusing. It doesn't take much to put a bruise on the throat.
I don't think there's "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," although the kid is obviously a work of shit.
LAST: The girls who took rides with him? Well, the "charming scoundrel" is a valid archtype. Criminals often are. They exert a certain power over females. It's powerful and illogical. A "nice" example: Bill Clinton. A very evil example: Charles Manson.
VERY LAST: Ideas for screen- and tele-plays are commonly combined from different sources, and various cases. Then they have to be condensed down to 40 minutes' production. So they are not realistically derived from actual events. Example: "The Exorcist," which was "based on a true story." Well, yes and no. The girl's story was true. But the author brought in very extreme stories of demonic possession, from various locals and periods of time. Many of them had not been fully authenticated. Then he combined all these stories and anecdotes, and crammed them into one story about one case.
-
So many problems. Although the kid is spoiled scum-bag brat, I'd have trouble voting to convict based on the fact pattern presented!
(Alleged) Victim #1 was allowed to change her testimony? There's an appeal right there--
Well, the initial police report---from 8 years prior----backed up her changed testimony (but did not explain why she chose to change it in the 1st place)
not to mention the trial judge's first decision to combine the cases.
And that was ruled against before the trial began. So all is fair there.
Jury of 6? HUH?? Rape is a fellony! You need a 12-person jury. Jury of 6 is for misdemeanors, and not for economy of scale.
Actually, I have heard of several jurisdictions adopting this "fewer than 12" approach, which, apparently, is Constitutional (since the Constitution doesn't specify a number of peers to serve on a jury)
No evidence of penetration? There had better been good corroborative evidence.
Well, no evidence of FORCED penetration. Both sides agree that penetration took place.
There's no mention of torn clothing, wounds, or brusing. It doesn't take much to put a bruise on the throat.
Both victims claim to have succumbed mostly to the THREAT of force.
VERY LAST: Ideas for screen- and tele-plays are commonly combined from different sources, and various cases. Then they have to be condensed down to 40 minutes' production. So they are not realistically derived from actual events. Example: "The Exorcist," which was "based on a true story." Well, yes and no. The girl's story was true. But the author brought in very extreme stories of demonic possession, from various locals and periods of time. Many of them had not been fully authenticated. Then he combined all these stories and anecdotes, and crammed them into one story about one case.
No no....this was a documentary.
---Ray. (by the way, I agree on the "not guilty" verdict, just feel compelled to play devils' advocate to make sure that all is fair.)
-
Also interesting that a kid with these financial and social resources got hit with two guilties!
The second trial should have been removed to a distant jurisdiction to protect the accused from the pre-trial publicity of the first conviction.
-
VERY LAST: Ideas for screen- and tele-plays are commonly combined from different sources, and various cases. Then they have to be condensed down to 40 minutes' production. So they are not realistically derived from actual events. Example: "The Exorcist," which was "based on a true story." Well, yes and no. The girl's story was true. But the author brought in very extreme stories of demonic possession, from various locals and periods of time. Many of them had not been fully authenticated. Then he combined all these stories and anecdotes, and crammed them into one story about one case.
Ah yes...I've heard of that being done before. It's sort've what they did with Jaws...no single shark ever did all of that stuff, but most of its actions had been perpetrated by numerous other sharks throughout history.
Hm. Well...I'd hesitate to paint him innocent, either.
I'd also think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist and who knows that he's being looked at for a previous rape, would try to avoid being alone with another young girl mere days later, much less having any form of sexual contact with her when it could be used against him.
Yes, but if this is true, then what about the flip-side of the coin?
Small High School, in a small town. EVERYONE had heard the rumors that he was a date-rapist.
Does a girl getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear SOME responsibility for whatever took place?
And then, AND THEN, Just 4 days later, when everyone has also heard that he's an accused rapist, who's been interogated by police on the matter,
does a girl, getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear STILL MORE responsibility for whatever took place?
ALSO, mix in the fact that this town is SOOOOOOO boring, that parents and police ALLOW the teens to indulge in drugs and alcohol at unchaparoned parties, is it completely out of the question that one (or both) of these girls conciously decided that they'd like to see what it would be like to be raped by a rich, good-looking, jock, and then, afterward, decided that rape wasn't as much fun as they thought it might be? I'm just askin'......
--Ray
I'm definitely not saying they made smart decisions, but I'd also very much hesitate to assign them any responsibility for it. If they actually were raped, then that comes dangerously close to blaming the victim, which I will not tolerate. I understand the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, and believe that policy must be upheld, but I'm also leery of making assumptions about the character or motivations of the victims, as that's one of the frustrating ways that men who clearly did rape their victims get away with it. Based on these facts, there's no way that we can postulate that these girls were just looking to try something daring and then later "decided that rape wasn't as much fun as they thought it would be".
Btw...I am making no claims either way about his innocence or guilt. I just also like playing devil's advocate. ;)
-
From this, we cannot say for sure whether he is innocent or guilty. No matter which way for it, there is no real evidence. Now if you look at it from the perspective of innocent until proven guilty, then innocent as you cannot prove guilt. If you look at it as guilty until proven innocent, then guilty will be the verdict.
Yes, I will agree that he had been unwise to have offered another ride. Of course in another way you can argue that if he had not offered, it would have meant he is guilty as he is avoiding the circumstance again. Again, all depend on how you see or how you want to see it.
-
As everyone's been saying there's really not enough info for us to make a decision but the way I see it is he's either guilty or innocent and totally retarded, in which case he should be locked up for his own safety! ;D
-
Heh. *smooch*
-
Playing Devil's advocate here too, by voting guilty.
I mean if the guy gave such lousy sex that the girls involved felt they had to complain about it, it must be rape! Lock 'em up!
-
Emily conjectures,
if the guy gave such lousy sex that the girls involved felt they had to complain about it, it must be rape! Lock 'em up!
I'd hate to see the case law on that!
Just think: victims of rape could not only sue for damages, but also for sexual inadequacy!
-
Hypothetically:
He has sex with the first girl. The sex is lousy on both parts and he kicks her to the curb. She feels used and degraded by the rich kid, cries to Daddy, yet they can't get charges filed. She talks her hot girlfriend into setting him up a few nights later. She has sex with him, only to scream rape and now they get their revenge on the guy for being a creep. He sounds like he is guilty of being an jerk, but not guilty of being a rapist. This may sound extreme, but I wouldn't doubt that it has been done.
-
Heh...I don't doubt it's been done, either, but I'm wondering how come everyone's composing all of these conspiracy theories in order to find ways to explain how this dude should be innocent? lol.
-
Heh...I don't doubt it's been done, either, but I'm wondering how come everyone's composing all of these conspiracy theories in order to find ways to explain how this dude should be innocent? lol.
Rape is a terrible crime and the worst thing about it is that it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I think Mike Tyson got a bad deal. They had no real proof he raped that woman yet they put him away. It's sad really, you smack around a few women and all of a sudden you are stereotyped. Poor Mike.
-
It's sad really, you smack around a few women and all of a sudden you are stereotyped. Poor Mike.
lol...I guess I'll just stand over here and shake my head at you, too.
-
Hypothetically:
He has sex with the first girl. The sex is lousy on both parts and he kicks her to the curb. She feels used and degraded by the rich kid, cries to Daddy, yet they can't get charges filed. She talks her hot girlfriend into setting him up a few nights later. She has sex with him, only to scream rape and now they get their revenge on the guy for being a creep. He sounds like he is guilty of being an jerk, but not guilty of being a rapist. This may sound extreme, but I wouldn't doubt that it has been done.
Hadn't thought of that, BUT, in fact, the 2nd chick was DEFINETLY hotter than the 1st....which would seem to support your theory.
---Ray
-
Heh...I don't doubt it's been done, either, but I'm wondering how come everyone's composing all of these conspiracy theories in order to find ways to explain how this dude should be innocent? lol.
Rape is a terrible crime and the worst thing about it is that it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I think Mike Tyson got a bad deal. They had no real proof he raped that woman yet they put him away. It's sad really, you smack around a few women and all of a sudden you are stereotyped. Poor Mike.
Actually, sarcasm not-with-standing, Mr. Tyson earned my respect during a Barbera Walters interview when he actually said one of the most profound things ever said by a convicted rapist. So convinced was he that his defense council had been inadequate, and that his jury had fucked up, that he told Barbera that he'd like another trial. NOTE: This was AFTER he'd served his time. AFTER he'd been released. Barbera asked the obvious follow up question: "What if you were convicted again?" With no hesitation what-so-ever, Mike said something that no innocent person---even a thinking one---would say:
"Then I'll do the time again." ---Mike Tyson
-
Emily conjectures,
if the guy gave such lousy sex that the girls involved felt they had to complain about it, it must be rape! Lock 'em up!
I'd hate to see the case law on that!
Just think: victims of rape could not only sue for damages, but also for sexual inadequacy!
Tee Hee! Be warned you old geezer!
On another thought, I just heard about this girl who made fantasy rape dates. To make it more 'real' she then followed up with real rape charges! Two guys were in jail when the third one managed to prove it was consensual and she got busted and is now serving jail time.
I got this info from a dating site called "Plenty of Fish" in a rape role play discussion thread. Does anyone know the details? Geeze, this happened to a friend of mine too. Fortunately he made the date off the internet and saved all his e-mails.
Let this be a warning to all of you that make rape dates with strangers!
-
Heh...I don't doubt it's been done, either, but I'm wondering how come everyone's composing all of these conspiracy theories in order to find ways to explain how this dude should be innocent? lol.
Rape is a terrible crime and the worst thing about it is that it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I think Mike Tyson got a bad deal. They had no real proof he raped that woman yet they put him away. It's sad really, you smack around a few women and all of a sudden you are stereotyped. Poor Mike.
Actually, sarcasm not-with-standing, Mr. Tyson earned my respect during a Barbera Walters interview when he actually said one of the most profound things ever said by a convicted rapist. So convinced was he that his defense council had been inadequate, and that his jury had fucked up, that he told Barbera that he'd like another trial. NOTE: This was AFTER he'd served his time. AFTER he'd been released. Barbera asked the obvious follow up question: "What if you were convicted again?" With no hesitation what-so-ever, Mike said something that no innocent person---even a thinking one---would say:
"Then I'll do the time again." ---Mike Tyson
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said he got a raw deal. He did. That woman had no proof and he served a long time. I believe he would have been found not guilty in a second trial.
-
Actually, sarcasm not-with-standing, Mr. Tyson earned my respect during a Barbera Walters interview when he actually said one of the most profound things ever said by a convicted rapist. So convinced was he that his defense council had been inadequate, and that his jury had fucked up, that he told Barbera that he'd like another trial. NOTE: This was AFTER he'd served his time. AFTER he'd been released. Barbera asked the obvious follow up question: "What if you were convicted again?" With no hesitation what-so-ever, Mike said something that no innocent person---even a thinking one---would say:
"Then I'll do the time again." ---Mike Tyson
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said he got a raw deal. He did. That woman had no proof and he served a long time. I believe he would have been found not guilty in a second trial.
I agree.
--Ray
-
Heh...I disagree (natch ;) ). The dude's a psycho who clearly has no boundaries when it comes to violence against other people. He bit a guy's ear off, for crying out loud.
-
Emily conjectures,
if the guy gave such lousy sex that the girls involved felt they had to complain about it, it must be rape! Lock 'em up!
I'd hate to see the case law on that!
Just think: victims of rape could not only sue for damages, but also for sexual inadequacy!
Tee Hee! Be warned you old geezer!
On another thought, I just heard about this girl who made fantasy rape dates. To make it more 'real' she then followed up with real rape charges! Two guys were in jail when the third one managed to prove it was consensual and she got busted and is now serving jail time.
I got this info from a dating site called "Plenty of Fish" in a rape role play discussion thread. Does anyone know the details? Geeze, this happened to a friend of mine too. Fortunately he made the date off the internet and saved all his e-mails.
Funny how PlentyOfFish also translates to "Plenty Offish." Reminds me of a website where they sell all types of ink pens....called Pen Island, or PENISland.com.
Still I like plenty of fish, since it's like the biggest free dating site around, problem is, the moderators are prudes, and having a s/name or profile that has anything to do with rape fantasy gets you deleted. (Other problem is that, like, half of the people are from Canada. Who knew they even had internet access up there?)
--Ray
-
Yes, Plenty of Fish has tons of rules about posting too. Not like here. Hell we'd all get banned for high-jacking Ray's thread there!
-
Heh...I disagree (natch ;) ). The dude's a psycho who clearly has no boundaries when it comes to violence against other people. He bit a guy's ear off, for crying out loud.
Well, in all fairness, the dude WAS punching Mr.Tyson at the time of the biting incident.
Seriously, though, it's hard to make the case that boxers = rapists because they are both violent.
What we do know about Mr. Tyson's past is that he was NEVER before accused of rape, or any type of bad sexual behavior.
And what we know about the accuser (but what the jury was NOT allowed to know) is that she had falsely accused men of rape before.
And we know that she went to Mike Tyson's hotel room to be with him alone after midnight.
We know that two of the jurors begged the judge to let them change their verdict after the trial.
We know that bruises found during her rape exam were, well, to put it delicately, deeper than they would have been had they been made by Mr. Tyson's penis.
We know that Tyson's appeal was denied because "Indiana's legal system makes China look fair.", according to Alan Dershowitz.
Anyone who can't find reasonable doubt there, does not belong on a jury.
--Ray
-
Well, in all fairness, the dude WAS punching Mr.Tyson at the time of the biting incident.
Heh...I won't fight the reasonable doubt angle. But dude? The guy gets *paid* to get punched. lol.
-
Ah, the dangers of being known as a bad-boy!
-
Both the preppie
prick--naw, I don't want to slur penises--, the preppie son-of-a-bitch--naw, I don't want to slur currs and bitches, you know the preppie scumbag well, let's just call him lowlife and Mike Tyson demonstrate for us that even the scum of the Earth* are entitled to a fair trial and their Constitutional rights, which incude the presumption of innocence and a finding of guilty only by "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." It's interesting that Tyson has since been arrested for DUI and possession of cocaine. So I guess he's finally getting what he deserves, although he didn't on the rape trial.
Think of the irony: O.J., well-established as a wife-batterer, walks free, and Tyson, well-established as a woman-abuser, serves time.
*I'm willing to make an exception on Jihadists. They're military "irregulars," fighting with neither uniforms nor national identities and legitimacy, and should be executed immediately when captured. Then thrown into unmarked graves with their exposes corpses covered with swine entrails. No rigthts for them whatsoever.
-
Think of the irony: O.J., well-established as a wife-batterer, walks free, and Tyson, well-established as a woman-abuser, serves time.
*I'm willing to make an exception on Jihadists. They're military "irregulars," fighting with neither uniforms nor national identities and legitimacy, and should be executed immediately when captured. Then thrown into unmarked graves with their exposes corpses covered with swine entrails. No rigthts for them whatsoever.
While don't want to waste time arguing againist your astrisk, because could but don't want to start something I don't have time to finish...I'm going to say that O.J. did not do it. He most likely knew why they were killed, knew they were going to be killed, but he didn't do it. He just knows who did. And those families need to understand, no amount of money will bring them back.
On topic: Ray, are you sure this was Justice you were watching? I find it hard as hell to believe the pimp-and-half bomb as all hell* lawyers at TNT & G could lose a cause like that.
*Translation: Persons of superior talent; peerless in skill at thier occupation.
-
Think of the irony: O.J., well-established as a wife-batterer, walks free, and Tyson, well-established as a woman-abuser, serves time.
*I'm willing to make an exception on Jihadists. They're military "irregulars," fighting with neither uniforms nor national identities and legitimacy, and should be executed immediately when captured. Then thrown into unmarked graves with their exposes corpses covered with swine entrails. No rigthts for them whatsoever.
While don't want to waste time arguing againist your astrisk, because could but don't want to start something I don't have time to finish...I'm going to say that O.J. did not do it. He most likely knew why they were killed, knew they were going to be killed, but he didn't do it. He just knows who did. And those families need to understand, no amount of money will bring them back.
On topic: Ray, are you sure this was Justice you were watching? I find it hard as hell to believe the pimp-and-half bomb as all hell* lawyers at TNT & G could lose a cause like that.
*Translation: Persons of superior talent; peerless in skill at thier occupation.
OJ was smart enough to get good lawyers; Tyson wasn't.
Which is why OJ....who IS guilty, walked free, and Tyson, who ISN'T guilty, served time.
Oh, and there's also the race issue.
OJ walked because he's black. And Tyson didn't walk. Also because he's black.
--Ray
-
It's interesting that Tyson has since been arrested for DUI and possession of cocaine. So I guess he's finally getting what he deserves, although he didn't on the rape trial.
This statement presupposes that a person DESERVES to be punished for drinking and driving, and for possessing cocaine.
I'm not willing to conceed either of those points.
--Ray
-
Ticky thing about reasonable doubt Ray is none of us were in the jury pool, didn't get to see or hear everything that was said and in particular didn't get to watch/listen to the victim's testimony, nor Tyson's for that matter, in its entirety. This was purely a he said/she said case, despite all pretense of evidence aside.
Frankly as I understand it she, the victim, came off believable and Tyson came off looking and sounding like a spoiled brat turned thug.
Given a retrospective look at Tyson's life before, during and after the rape trial, this seems to be a guy who doesn't take the word 'no' in stride very well and his propensity for violence, outside the ring that is, gives me pause and makes me wonder if he truly IS capable of rape. At the time I thought he probably got hosed as well, mind you. Unfortunately since then Tyson has forced a turn around on that front, with me anyway.
I don't buy the boxer/wrestler/lacrosse/football/basketball player = rapist or violent threat crap. ts not the sport that makes one violent. What I see is a small class within the class of individuals/athletes who are so accustomed to getting their way that they continually make dumbass/bonehead decisions and too often don't figure the proverbial 'it' out until its too late.
Case in point, you take a disciplined, mature athlete, say Payton Manning, Albert Pujols, Michael Jordan, or even a Mike Singletary. All premiere athletes. All are/were at the top of their respective sports. Manning and in particular Singletary make their living in a 'violent' manner. Yet can anyone EVER see one of these guys placing themselves in a dangerous situation or charged with rape, i.e. Kobe Bryant, Ray Lewis, or the Denver Bronos player (SOOOOOO sorry his name escapes me) who was murdered over New Years? don't know if these guys did anything wrong or not, though truthfully it looks like Ray Lewis got off light and WAS guilty of at least SOMETHING. Or are/were they just so incredibly STUPID that they placed themselves in such a precarious situation?
You can toss in the Duke players into this bunch. Did they rape the alleged victim? Well sans ANY proof, ESPECIALLY with LOADS of DNA/semen in her but none from the guys in question, I seriously doubt it. Did these guys actually do anything illegal? doubted it at first and now am all but convinced they are innocent of any criminal wrong doing.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!
What they are DEFINETLY guilty of is a HUGE amount of poor judgement and thinking with their cocks instead of engaging CPU #1 and using the gray matter God provided.
Long story short, if you are Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, et al, and you don't have the sense to know that you have a MAJOR bullseye painted on your back, that there are those that will try and do you in for the money and fame, then you're dumb as a brick!
-
Ticky thing about reasonable doubt Ray is none of us were in the jury pool, didn't get to see or hear everything that was said and in particular didn't get to watch/listen to the victim's testimony, nor Tyson's for that matter, in its entirety. This was purely a he said/she said case, despite all pretense of evidence aside.
Frankly as I understand it she, the victim, came off believable and Tyson came off looking and sounding like a spoiled brat turned thug.
Given a retrospective look at Tyson's life before, during and after the rape trial, this seems to be a guy who doesn't take the word 'no' in stride very well and his propensity for violence, outside the ring that is, gives me pause and makes me wonder if he truly IS capable of rape. At the time I thought he probably got hosed as well, mind you. Unfortunately since then Tyson has forced a turn around on that front, with me anyway.
I don't buy the boxer/wrestler/lacrosse/football/basketball player = rapist or violent threat crap. ts not the sport that makes one violent. What I see is a small class within the class of individuals/athletes who are so accustomed to getting their way that they continually make dumbass/bonehead decisions and too often don't figure the proverbial 'it' out until its too late.
Case in point, you take a disciplined, mature athlete, say Payton Manning, Albert Pujols, Michael Jordan, or even a Mike Singletary. All premiere athletes. All are/were at the top of their respective sports. Manning and in particular Singletary make their living in a 'violent' manner. Yet can anyone EVER see one of these guys placing themselves in a dangerous situation or charged with rape, i.e. Kobe Bryant, Ray Lewis, or the Denver Bronos player (SOOOOOO sorry his name escapes me) who was murdered over New Years? don't know if these guys did anything wrong or not, though truthfully it looks like Ray Lewis got off light and WAS guilty of at least SOMETHING. Or are/were they just so incredibly STUPID that they placed themselves in such a precarious situation?
You can toss in the Duke players into this bunch. Did they rape the alleged victim? Well sans ANY proof, ESPECIALLY with LOADS of DNA/semen in her but none from the guys in question, I seriously doubt it. Did these guys actually do anything illegal? doubted it at first and now am all but convinced they are innocent of any criminal wrong doing.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!
What they are DEFINETLY guilty of is a HUGE amount of poor judgement and thinking with their cocks instead of engaging CPU #1 and using the gray matter God provided.
Long story short, if you are Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, et al, and you don't have the sense to know that you have a MAJOR bullseye painted on your back, that there are those that will try and do you in for the money and fame, then you're dumb as a brick!
Maybe, but you SHOULD be able to get chix with fame....it's part of the American Dream. And the women of America have done their part to make this clear. College kids SHOULD be able to hire strippers. And the Boxing Stars, and Basketball Stars, and Football and Baseball stars, and TV and Movie stars SHOULD be able to allow women to come into their rooms at night. And when those star-struck women DO go there, following it the night up with a rape indictment SHOULD be as futile as suing a McDonalds when you spill their hot coffee in your own lap SHOULD have been.
I think it all comes back to a broken judicial system in which prosecutors think (often correctly) that the jurors in their districts are, as you put it, dumb as bricks.
Perhaps the solution is to hold jurors responsible: Delivera bonehead verdict, that turns out to be wrong, then YOU do the time. Make a bonehead financial award, then YOU pay the fine.
Christ I saw a case where a man was released from prison after serving 6 years for a murder he had nothing to do with. The case had been circumstancial---and weak. But they interviewed one of the jurors after his exoneration. She had the gall to show her face on TV. And they named her. And she actually said "Well, if I had it to do all over again, and they showed me the same evidence, i'd have to vote guilty again." HUH????? In other words, she has since seen that it would have, in fact, been REASONABLE to DOUBT the evidence that she was shown (what with him being innocent, and all), but she STILL doesn't see the amount of evidence they had as not sufficient to prove guilt. How do we not throw this woman in prison, just on general principle? ARRRGGGHHH!!!!
--Ray
-
All this other stuff aside, rape is too often he said, she said. It is a terrible crime, but there should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't agree that when a woman goes into a hotel room she is free game to rape, but it seems if women don't want sex they shouldn't allow themselves to be in that position.
I am big on analogies to prove a point, and this is not gay bashing. But if I met a gay guy, and he made it obvious he was very attracted to me, I wouldn't go to his hotel room. And I am a man that is far less likely to be overpowered than a woman. I just wouldn't put myself in a precarious position, yet beauty queens do it? It doesn't make sense.
-
For starters, Emily responded to a post of mine with the sobrique,
Tee Hee! Be warned you old geezer!
"old geezer" indeed!! What about "sexy senior citizen" or "D.O.M." or my favorite, "Old Goat"?? A little respect, you brat!
Now, Ray's extravagent futuristic scenario is quite intriguing. He may be on to something. It may well be--especially with a more liberalized atmosphere of sexual conduct--that the context of a sexual event may be more scrupulously litigated than the actual event itself. Gentlemen Rapists, just be sure you don't rip clothes or leave bruises.
But it's not quite so simple, and this depends greatly on the jurisdiction in which it occurs. What I'm talking about is the rules of evidence. In some areas, the victim's previous sexual experience is absolutely precluded. In others, it's admissible but only with certain arguments or circumstances. And in other areas, the prosecution must pro-actively move to exclude it.
The same applies for testimony and evidence about the nature of the relationship that preceeded the rape, and so on. these vary from state to state, and are based upon statutory law and case law (judicial precedents) as well.
But you'd think the previous record of Tyson's alleged victim would have been available to the jury. And, Emily, it's reassuring that the manhating bitch got her come-uppance, regarding... this girl who made fantasy rape dates. To make it more 'real' she then followed up with real rape charges! Two guys were in jail when the third one managed to prove it was consensual and she got busted and is now serving jail time.
I hate to think of the men out there in divorce and custody litigation who have been burned to a legal crisp by women who come up with trumped-up abuse, rape, child endangerment (etc.etc.etc!!) charges to gain revenge and legal advantage.
-
Just a couple more points, and I'll try to be brief:
OJ had better lawyers, true. I think he also had more $$, since he was successful pimping for Hertz. Tyson has been in trouble more, had few resources, and less access to the "A" list legal team OJ got.
BigOrangePeel and Raymond Pist bring up a very large issue that's a bit of a tangent, but very interesting: the matter of Jock Culture and its role in Western culture. The unfortunate fact is, successful jocks are adored and honored, and from a very early age! BigOrangePeel's point is well taken: What I see is a small class within the class of individuals/athletes who are so accustomed to getting their way that they continually make dumbass/bonehead decisions and too often don't figure the proverbial 'it' out until its too late.
They are set aside, given special privileges, excused from hard course work so they can practice, and are often protected from the consequences of misbehavior! There's just too much temptation and not enough punishment for their excesses.
So you get a large population group of men who behave like spoiled brats. Not all, not even most, but enough so that it's a common and recurring problem.
And you're right on target, Ray: And when those star-struck women DO go there, following it the night up with a rape indictment SHOULD be as futile as suing a McDonalds when you spill their hot coffee in your own lap SHOULD have been.
You know, I'm kind of inclined to think, "a plague on both their houses!"