EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:23 AM) Link So there's now corroborating witnesses that are saying "something terrible happened to this girl, she withdrew into depression as a result, and now we're judging her based on whether her memory of the incident is strongly accurate." These folks could be making stuff up as well, but this should illustrate the problem. It's now out there as a standard assumption that she is making the whole thing up and falsely accusing them for whatever reason, but it sure looks like this is your standard, complicated story. So no remorse for the frat being accused of this with no evidence? If she can't remember, or isn't clear, then that sucks for her. But needing closure doesn't give her the right to just pick details out of a fuzzy memory and screw potentially innocent guys. You, and the media, are judging these guys on something someone SAID they did, which they may or may not have done. I actually blame the writer of the story more than I blame that woman. She has a history of embellishing her stories and stuff. She wrote of a military rape, also in Rolling Stone,. and if I recall that story as well was torn to shreds.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 07:40 PM) The reason why this is such a complicated issue is spelled out right there. Put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is accusing a person or perhaps even a group of people of something improper. It's her word at best against one person, maybe even against that of several people. It's probably a traumatic experience, so memory isn't exactly going to be the best thing anyway. Basically we're talking about something on the verge of PTSD for the victim. Now you want to add a penalty of significant jail time if the accuser cannot prove her case. That would be practically the last time anyone in this country ever is prosecuted for rape, because no one would ever dare to accuse someone again even when it happened. No, I want to add the penalty if you can prove she made the whole damn thing up. Not being able to prove they did it is one thing. but when it can be shown that you just plain outright lied, because the guy didn't call you back, you saw deep pockets or some feminist group convinced you you had repressed memories, you are the one deserving of punishment, not the person you FALSELY accused. And FYI, being wrongly accused is also pretty traumatic, I can attest from first hand experience back in 1987. I am just glad they didn't have the kangaroo court s*** back then that they do now, even though I was still not allowed in any dorm except mine and was suspended from my sports teams. I was able to show that I was with other people the night in question and even out of town the next two days, justin case she had her days messed up. (She had made the claim saying it happened the prior weekend, so I can't imagine her messing the days up that badly) I had stopped dating the person over a month prior, and she had tried to get us together again more than once, with me saying no each time. I guess she just got mad or something, I don't know, was never allowed to ask or know what her replies were when shown proof that I wasn't there any time she claimed I was, or even near it. But I still got a lot of weird looks the rest of my junior year and even the next. I did nothing wrong, yet my senior year dating was pretty much non-existent and I still heard whispers at parties.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 08:56 AM) This makes so much sense. However, taken to the extreme is just as wrong. By "sweeping" these things under the rug it allows people to perpetually commit crimes without being called out on it. Rape victims have always had a hard time coming forward. For a long time here it became blame the victim for the way they dressed, where they were, being drunk, having had sex with other men, etc. Nice strawman Tex, but nobody said anything about sweeping them under the rug or not treating them seriously. Two wrongs don't make a right, right? So why deny accused rapists of their due course. A mere accusation can ruin someone for life. Colleges throwing people out of school, their name spread around as if they did it. If the allegation was false, then the false accuser should be messed up as much as possible legally for it. If the person is guilty of the rape, then punish them as much as you can.

“I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better,” Erdley told the New York Times. “I am also not interested in diverting the conversation away from the point of the piece itself.” So the reported admits that it is all about the narrative. What the f*** happened to journalism. And that hack should never get another writing job, ever. http://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-uva-ra...-180722194.html

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) Kinda sucks when a few are used to sully the whole, right. touche'!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) "Duke LaCrosse" does not actually prove that false rape allegations are widespread, but that's the effect that story and this one will have. It harms actual rape victims and makes them that much less likely to come forward. No, but it proved that these cases need to stop being tried in the media and court of public opinion, because all they do is screw things up. It messes up the people wrongly accused and messes up people in the future that were actually raped by making it harder for them to come forward and/or be believed.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Didnt UVA pretty much shut down all Greek activities after this came out? Well, the narrative called for that. Guys, bad. Rape, bad. Punish guys for rape they didn't do because, guys! And women wonder why other women are afraid to come forward with rape allegations. it's because of all the fake s*** out there that various SJW's, or just messed up people, keep trying to pass off. Like the Bush military records, 'fake, but accurate'. Bulls***. Turns out that the rape allegations in Lena Dunham's book are either completely fake or she changed so much s*** around and pointed to a completely innocent individual. When a conservative website tried to get in touch with various people at Obelin, they were told that the truth didn't matter, rape matters, and that they weren't going to help.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 08:15 AM) By saying this -- even if it follows a statement of what the officers could have done to also prevent Garner's death -- you're absolving the officers of everything once Garner "opens the door." You don't see the problem with that? And how you can watch that video and think Garner "opened the door" at all is beyond me. Do you deny that he was resisting arrest? That is opening the door for the police to escalate the situation. And no it doesn't absolve the police of responsibility. It just adds some of that back on him for resisting. Why can't both be at fault?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) Pulling your hand away does not or at least should not "open" a door to police brutality and murder. If a police officer cannot resist the "invitation" to violence, they should be fired immediately and tried and convicted for any excessive force they have used. I understand that there seems to have been something wrong on the officers part. You seem to be completely incapable of admitting that the guy resisting arrest has some blame here as well for escalating the situation. Nobody said that pulling your hand away from an officer justifies getting killed. But it does justify a response.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) He's struggling while he's on the ground while saying the phrase "I can't breathe" 10 or so times. You don't see what the difficulty might be? Do none of you have reading comprehension? I saw that, heard that. I see the choke hold applied until a few seconds after he is on the ground. I see his struggling again once they get one handcuff one and a knee in the side of his head. I already said that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:18 PM) I do not believe that police should be generally viewed as violent thugs with no impulse control such that the result of the slightest disobedience is police brutality. The man pulled his hand away a few times because he was being harassed about some damn cigarettes and that's about it. It doesn't justify jumping on his back and putting him in a choke hold. It doesn't justify using a tazer on him or bashing his knees with a baton. Do you want to police to enforce the laws or not? The only way they have to enforce them is violence and/or the threat of violence. If you think certain laws are trivial enough to not need to be enforced, then just eliminate the laws altogether. What laws he was violating shouldn't matter. If he broke the law and was to be arrested, resisting arrest is an open invitation for the violence part of law enforcement. Not agreeing with the level that seems to have been used, but the door was open. He chose unwisely.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:09 PM) Resisting arrest doesn't excuse police brutality and murder. At no point should any NYPD officer ever put anyone in a choke hold. These are supposed to be trained, disciplined professionals, and if "anything can happen," they should be fired for incompetence. I didn't say it excused it. I said that HE is the one that elevated the situation first by resisting arrest. He started a chain of events that had the eventual reality of him being dead. He could have prevented this by not resisting arrest. It also could have been prevented from somethign other than a choke hold, maybe a tazer, or how about a baton against the back of the knees? He opened the door to potentially bad things and bad things happened.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 12:43 PM) He initially pulls his hands away from the officer trying to grab them. After that point, and the entire time the choke hold is on him, he is offering zero resistance. STOP RESISTING WITH YOUR DYING I see him fighting and resisting until he is on the ground, and even then once they get one hand finally behind his back, he is still struggling. The knee someone had against his head may have had a contributing factor as well. Now there will be a few of you who will jump to the conclusion that I think he deserved to die for (allegedly) selling loosies. I didn't say or imply that anywhere, so you can just suck on that right now before you even begin. but once you resist arrest, YOU have elevated the situation to a point where anything can happen. Somewhat surprised there were no criminal charges of some kind, but pretty sure a civil case will be pending.

Well one takeaway from all this is 'don't resist arrest'.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:50 AM) I said that people in Ferguson might not want to join the police department because they view them as the enemy after the events of the Michael Brown shooting. You more or less said they would rather go burn buildings down. Tell me how I'm supposed to interpret that. if they are viewed as the enemy, how do you change that? From within. Instead, some chose to burn a bakery.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:34 AM) I'm sure all those protesters set stores ablaze. Because they have nothing better to do. Because they're lazy and don't have jobs... There you go making s*** up again. Point out where I said that. I said they were idiots. Lazy and unemployed was never mentioned. Opportunistic would apply, since I would wager that most of the looters and stuff looked at the opportunity as an easy way to get free stuff. Then you also have the outside agitators, who at times seemed to be the majority. Different motives for some of them altogether. Professional anarchists, anti government types of all kinds, a few commies and some white-guilt liberals sprinkled in.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) And what makes you think those people want to join the police force after what they saw as a huge injustice by them? If you can't beat 'em, join them? Yeah, I guess burning down a bakery makes more sense.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) lol we should hire more minority cops so we won't have discussions on racial tension anymore? Because if it's black on black crimes, you can tell us how violent they are some more? Please stop acting like it doesn't exist. Because it still does. I may not be black or Hispanic, but as a minority living in the south, I still see it. Have I ever said it didn't exist? Quit projecting an image that you have of me, because you don't know me. I know it exists. Just saying that instead of rioting and acting like idiots, maybe do something positive like police your community. Join the force. Would be a much more positive action than burning and looting a convenience store. Maybe get that force up to 50% black and see if that helps community relations any. See if it helps to ease tensions and get better police protection.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) We have the option to override the setting if we want. For now...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) I do wonder how Ferguson would have looked different if there had been a bunch of people with lawfully licensed assault-style rifles standing in with the rioters. There were several cases of those guarding building and businesses, of both races.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) Ferguson is 67% African American, its police force is 6% African American. Then perhaps some of the fine upstanding residents of Ferguson should consider a career in law enforcement.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) Like Tex pointed out, our nation's existence follows from violence as a reasonable response to certain types of oppression. How many times have we heard about how "Second amendment solutions" are necessary to prevent the tyranny of government helping poor people see a doctor over the past few years? This cuts both ways. So now you are all for the second amendment? Cool!

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Seriously? You're acting like there are no black cops or something... Did you notice the word MORE in what I wrote? There obviously isn't enough, because every time something like this happens you hear the race-baiters talk about how the department doesn't mirror the communities.

Maybe there should be a push nationwide to get more minorities to become police officers, and to help serve in minority communities. I'm tired of hearing "White cop..." Get some black cops. Or would that ruin their street cred by becoming the Man? Would black cops be called sellouts, or worse?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 05:01 PM) East India didn't impose those taxes, Parliament did. EI was a quasi-governmental agency at heart. Now you are just nitpicking.