Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Nylonathatep » Sat May 25, 2013 1:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:Calling someone a rape apologist for being skeptical about this, what with the whole police not doing anything before, is a bit extreme.
Yes, calling someone a rape apologist for just that might be extreme.

I called him a rape apologist for all the *other* rape apologia he's littered around this thread.


I've browse through this thread quite a few times after originally posting the article, but I haven't see any 'rape apologist' in this thread. People taking opposing views, pending on evidence before jumping to conclusion, and being skeptical and presenting alternative views regard the subjects certainly are not 'Rape Apologist' in any sense of the world.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby CorruptUser » Sat May 25, 2013 1:37 pm UTC

Quotes from Snow

I'm pretty sure she's just making things up since right off the bat she was looking to gain money from it. Furthermore it's 2 years after the fact so, conveniently enough for her, the cops can't double check her nonexistent physical "evidence." Meanwhile the millionaire basketball player who probably does a different chick every week, and who has no need to rape anyone, is helping police in any way he can. I mean 1+1=?

I mean, hell, if getting drunk at a bar and hitting on the richest looking guy there could make you a millionaire because of feminist "rape culture" then there is something wrong with society and the way we look at gender and rape in general. I really hate to bring this up but if the genders here were reversed, and she was the millionaire female basketball player... but these girls read all sorts of stuff on the internet and think they can get away with anything just because of their gender. It's sad really.


Denial.
Assuming that women search out rich beautiful people to frame for rape.
Referring to rape culture as 'feminist propaganda'.

To be fair, I wouldn't know; I'm not a rapist. I always think of rapists as unattractive people who need to use devious means to have sex. Why would you steal something that you can get for free? I'm sorry for not understanding... it's like, why would an attractive woman rape a random unattractive guy? But alright let's say the guy says no to sex, or would have said no had he not been drinking, does that mean every time a guy gets drunk and has sex with a girl the girl raped him? I don't drink but I've had sex after smoking weed, does that mean I was raped? Can I get money out of it?

It just seems damn strange that she'd go after money instead of trying to incarcerate the guy. Also I hate to point this out but it's easy to fabricate evidence and some people would go through some very elaborate schemes to make a quick buck. Thought I'm pretty sure her evidence is just he said she said stuff anyway.


Assuming only ugly people rape.

I don't think having different views makes people shitty people.

I'm a bit detached, I'll give you that: anyway the way I see it, an attractive person has sex with an unattractive person. Later the unattractive person cries rape. Alright, fair enough. So do we:

1. Put anyone who is accused of rape in jail
2. Check for evidence and only intricate those proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to have committed a crime?

What's this? The unattractive person doesn't want 1, and ESPECIALLY doesn't want 2? Instead they want money?

It just seems REALLY sketchy to me and, I don't know, people seem to WANT to have sex with attractive people so attractive people don't need to use date rate drugs, especially on unattractive people. It just doesn't add up.

You guys are making this basketball player out to be some serial rapist asshole. If you were a millionaire "player" who could get any girl you want (or at least, that's how you think in your head) would you use date rape drugs?


I don't want to read all this schlock.

She immediately started talking about money to the cops like it was the plan all along.


"She's filed a civil lawsuit, but now we're learning shortly after the alleged incident, she went to LAPD cops who dismissed her claim because her story didn't make sense. What's more ... law enforcement says at the time she went to cops, she was already talking about a lawsuit, and that made them even more suspicious."

What I'm saying is factually correct. Anyway these charges are very serious.

"She claims a test at the center confirmed she had been drugged, and determined the injuries to her vagina and rectum were consistent with rape."

Well if she can present that evidence in court then she might have a case. Just saying "oh, the treatment center said this" doesn't prove jack unless she has papers to prove it. If she's willing to do that, instead of this "just give me money and settle this out of court" crap she's pulling then I'd be all for her cause!

I'm sure everyone would be with her if she just stopped grabbing for money for 30 seconds!! Instead, if she tried to incarcerate the guy, people would take her seriously!!


Let's presume he brutally raped her. Would you WANT him to just be able to pay her off? If she gets any money out of this it's a punch in the face to anyone who cares about women's rights.

I'm saying bring it to a normal court. Let's see her evidence first under legal examination instead of making wild accusations. I'm holing innocent until proven guilty here. If she was dismissed by the cops they probably had some reason to do so: what we are getting is just some headline post from people who like to make a show out of everything


But you are assuming she is guilty until proven innocent. The alleged rape victim is not supposed to be the one on trial.

Then sue the police! There's always someone higher up on the ladder to go after: this has been proven time and time again. If you try hard enough your case will go to court. If you, from day 1, are after money no one (especially not the cops) will take you seriously


Diverting the blame.

Question: if she can prove in civil court that she was raped, can she than use that to get him incarcerated? I'm not sure how the legal system works, but if she can, I'm all for her to be seen in civil court. It is just disgusting to think that a rapist can just "pay off" someone if they're rich enough and it's equally disgusting to think some people would try to take advantage of that to make money.


This is a weasel argument. Snow is trying to say 'I want him off the hook, but not totally because I'm denying rape!'. It's like the 'teach the controversy' bullshit, 'we aren't trying to force the bible on people, we just are trying to show that the bible is SCIENCE!'.

Well it's not like this is going anywhere. There's pretty much a 0% chance this woman gets any money or this guy is thrown in jail... at most there will be a trial where she fails to present the evidence she claims to have... and even such a mock trial is unlikely to happen.


Assumptions that may not be true. Keep telling a story often enough...

So let me get this straight: if you have trust in the police, who refused her a trial, you're a rape apologist? With what we know the police wouldn't give her a trial so something must be seriously wrong with her claims. Look her grab for money (which reports say she was after since day 1) is just distasteful and it really does look like the whole thing is going nowhere fast. Anyway you could try to slam him for bringing her home drunk: that would be more fruitful than arguing over evidence that may or may not exist and none of us have seen.

Also it's not the first time the victim has pulled this and has tried similar stunts in the past. She's also has a law degree. Various sources are also saying at the time of the incident she underwent an examination showing no foreign DNA on her and repeatedly texted Ebanks. You give a date rape victim your phone number right?


Straw man.
False dilemma.
Claims without evidence; when did she try this in the past?

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby dudiobugtron » Sat May 25, 2013 10:37 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Magnanimous wrote:
Kag wrote:
dudiobugtron wrote:If the court finds him not guilty then there's a reasonable chance he's actually not guilty.

No. In order to meaningfully do that calculation we need to know what the evidence actually is.

And you'd have to know roughly the court's rate of false positives/negatives in cases like this to know how meaningful a given verdict is.

And the quality of the the opposing lawyers.

Hang on. So three separate people all think that if the only information you have is that a person was found not guilty, then there is not a reasonable chance they are not guilty? So, in the absence of further information, you should assume someone found 'not guilty' is guilty?

Of course if you had all of that information, you could make a better estimate of the chance. But if you don't, it's obviously OK to say that there is a 'reasonable chance' that the court didn't get it completely wrong. Unless everyone is just being facetious and I misunderstood - in which case I apologise.
Image

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Magnanimous » Sun May 26, 2013 2:57 am UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:Hang on. So three separate people all think that if the only information you have is that a person was found not guilty, then there is not a reasonable chance they are not guilty? So, in the absence of further information, you should assume someone found 'not guilty' is guilty?

We're not saying there's no reasonable chance, we're saying you don't necessarily know there is. It may be good evidence that they are not guilty. However, U.S. courts are famously bad at prosecuting rape cases so it's not that simple.

Think of it this way: before the trial you know roughly how probable it is that they're guilty. Statistics say the rate of false/unfounded rape accusations is somewhere around 8%, but that's very hard to measure. For this post we'll take a pessimistic rate of 20% falsehood, so if all you know is that someone was accused, the probability of them being guilty is 80%. Then they go to court and are found not guilty.

Now there's clearly still some chance that they were guilty, and now it's less than 80%. But you can't just assume it's significantly less likely: to find out how the probability changes, you need to know roughly how likely the court is to find a guilty person innocent, and how likely it is to find an innocent person not guilty. (Also things like how strong the submitted evidence is and how good the lawyers are, but we can ignore those for now.) You can estimate the probability that somebody who was acquitted is guilty:

P(guilty|found not guilty) = P(found not guilty|guilty)*P(guilty) / [P(found not guilty|guilty)*P(guilty) + P(found not guilty|not guilty)*P(not guilty)]
P(someone found not guilty is guilty) = number of guilty people who are found not guilty / number of people found not guilty

The National Violence Against Women Survey came up with 37% of accusations being prosecuted. and the DoJ reported the the conviction rate at trial of 48%. We can assume you're a lot more likely to be found guilty if you actually did it, so we'll be generous and say that overall rate of 48% comes from finding 59% of rapists guilty and 4% of innocent people guilty. We'll assume that half of guilty people plead guilty (though IIRC it's generally lower than this). This means the proportions are...

Accused who are guilty ≈ .8
Accused who are guilty, are prosecuted, and found not guilty: .8 * .37 * .41 * .5 ≈ .062
Accused who are innocent, are prosecuted, and found not guilty: .2 * .37 * .96 ≈ .069
Accused found not guilty ≈ .131
Accused who are guilty and found not guilty ≈ .062 / .131 ≈ .47

If the only information that you have is that someone was accused and acquitted by this court, there's a 47% chance that they're guilty. If the acquittal came from a really
good court system that convicts nearly every criminal while acquitting nearly everyone else, then yes, someone accused of rape and found not guilty is almost certainly innocent. Because of the low false report rate and low conviction rate relative to other crimes, being found not guilty is slightly less meaningful for rape. (If you learn more about the trial this number can shift: upwards if the defense lawyer is awesome or the evidence supports guilty, downwards if the prosecuting lawyer is good and the evidence shows that they're innocent.)

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Nylonathatep » Sun May 26, 2013 4:00 am UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
Magnanimous wrote:
Kag wrote:
dudiobugtron wrote:If the court finds him not guilty then there's a reasonable chance he's actually not guilty.

No. In order to meaningfully do that calculation we need to know what the evidence actually is.

And you'd have to know roughly the court's rate of false positives/negatives in cases like this to know how meaningful a given verdict is.

And the quality of the the opposing lawyers.

Hang on. So three separate people all think that if the only information you have is that a person was found not guilty, then there is not a reasonable chance they are not guilty? So, in the absence of further information, you should assume someone found 'not guilty' is guilty?

Of course if you had all of that information, you could make a better estimate of the chance. But if you don't, it's obviously OK to say that there is a 'reasonable chance' that the court didn't get it completely wrong. Unless everyone is just being facetious and I misunderstood - in which case I apologise.


And that, my friend, is how UFO conspiracy, 9/11 Truthers, and Moon Landing Deniersare born. If reason and logic doesn't agree with their perceived truth , they'll just blame the institution for a cover up or screwed job. "9/11 is staged by the U.S as an excuse to start a war with Iraq! Government have been hiding information about UFO from the general public! If the court proves someone is not guilty then the court must be corrupted and the judicial system is a giant fail! The DA said the women doesn't have a case because all cops are incompetent and corrupted!!!!!!!"

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Belial » Sun May 26, 2013 4:54 am UTC

You guys know that the court system isn't in the business of proving innocence, right? Like, the reason they use "not guilty" instead of "innocent" is because the only truth they're attesting with the verdict was "we couldn't absolutely prove the dude did it"?

So maybe quit acting like it's ludicrous to acknolwedge that the simple fact of a not-guilty verdict in a notoriously hard-to-prosecute type of case doesn't prove that much?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Nylonathatep » Sun May 26, 2013 5:31 am UTC

Belial wrote:You guys know that the court system isn't in the business of proving innocence, right? Like, the reason they use "not guilty" instead of "innocent" is because the only truth they're attesting with the verdict was "we couldn't absolutely prove the dude did it"?

So maybe quit acting like it's ludicrous to acknolwedge that the simple fact of a not-guilty verdict in a notoriously hard-to-prosecute type of case doesn't prove that much?


I'm sure we understand that point clearly, and furthermore that point has been brought up in this thread before. The question is, why would anyone continue to assume of guilt upon a hypothetical case (In which there's not much evidence in public) that technically hasn't even reach a verdict yet. Furthermore, even if the court would reach a verdict that favours the defendant, some people on this thread would still continue to stain the taint of guilt upon the accused just because the crime that he was accused and acquitted on is rape? For example, if the accused successful defended himself in the court of law regarding say... a traffic violation, would you still take the position that he still MAY be guilty even if the court found him not so?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby gmalivuk » Sun May 26, 2013 6:30 am UTC

I don't know if you noticed, but the Simpson case has already been brought up in this thread, where the guy was found not guilty of murder but still liable for wrongful death and still believed guilty by a sizable portion of the population.

Fact is, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If we assume that means 95% or more (and I'd hope the bar is generally a lot higher than that, else 1 in 20 convicts is innocent), then a not guilty verdict really just means the jurors weren't more than 95% sure of guilt. In different cases, of course, their actual assessment could presumably be anywhere from 0% to 94%, but the point being made was that you can't simply declare that there's a good chance he's actually not guilty just because that was the verdict.

(Of course, I suppose you could define "a reasonable chance" of not guilty as equivalent to "a reasonable doubt" of guilt, in which case a not guilty verdict trivially means jurors ascribed a "reasonable" chance to the defendant's not being guilty.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby CorruptUser » Sun May 26, 2013 6:48 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Fact is, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If we assume that means 95% or more (and I'd hope the bar is generally a lot higher than that, else 1 in 20 convicts is innocent)


Not quite true. You are convicting the people who are 19 out of 20 times guilty, but you are also convicting the people who are 9999 out of 10,000 times guilty. As for the 1 in 20 people who are not guilty, many of them are on trial because they are guilty of something else. While this is still disconcerting as we probably agree you should only be convicted for what you actually did, the overwhelming majority of people in prison belong there.

Of course, this doesn't mean we should make prison to be the rape-fest it is; even if every last one of them is an unrepentant asshole, raping them will probably not turn them into model citizens when they finish serving their time.



At the risk of going on a tangent, what do you do in a particularly bizarre case that happened a few months ago; a woman was raped, DNA evidence was able to prove it was the guy, except he had an identical twin brother. One was clearly guilty, both had equivalently strong/weak alibis. Possibly both were guilty for all we know. Do you convict both? Neither? Put both on parole or other monitoring system? Let each serve half of the sentence? If you say 'innocent till proven guilty', both go free. And the evil twin strikes again. If neither are more likely guilty than the other, both go free again. Then the evil twin strikes again... Is society better off letting the evil twin roam free than risking jailing the good twin, or protecting the largest number of people even if that means one innocent suffers for a crime he didn't commit? It's easy to say 'innocent till proven guilty' when you won't be the next victim, just as it's easy to say 'hang them high!' when it's not your neck in the noose.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby sigsfried » Sun May 26, 2013 10:38 am UTC

Has to be not guilty. You can't convict two people when there is only evidence of one crime.
Nothing to pick between them so you can't convict one and not the other.

Of course there might be evidence of conspiracy if such occurances keep happening.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Nylonathatep » Sun May 26, 2013 12:35 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I don't know if you noticed, but the Simpson case has already been brought up in this thread, where the guy was found not guilty of murder but still liable for wrongful death and still believed guilty by a sizable portion of the population.


I don't know if you've noticed, but I was the one who first bought up OJ Simpson trial in this thread and used that case is a reference to the same point that you've tried to make.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=102200&start=40#p3358379

The population can BELIEVE whatever it wants, but the accused shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as if he was trial and found guilty. Otherwise there's no point in have a trial for someone who's accused of rape; he'll be treated the same either if he's found guilty or not guilty.

Going back into the same example, you can believe that OJ Simpson did kill his ex-wife and her fiancee, but I'm sure there has to be some law that prevents you to go up to him and say "You killed your ex-wife, you bloody murderer!"

Surely you can understand the difference between belief and treatment, and the punishment for any crime is more then just prison terms, right?

elasto
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby elasto » Sun May 26, 2013 1:30 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:Going back into the same example, you can believe that OJ Simpson did kill his ex-wife and her fiancee, but I'm sure there has to be some law that prevents you to go up to him and say "You killed your ex-wife, you bloody murderer!"
Libel/slander would be a civil matter - and OJ was convicted in civil court, so you probably could do it to him.

Do that to this guy and he could likewise take you to court for libel/slander, and he likewise might or might not win. Levels of evidence are different in the two systems.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby CorruptUser » Sun May 26, 2013 2:24 pm UTC

Do libel laws work like civil or criminal court? In the burden of proof sense. That is, is it libel/slander if what you said is just barely probably not true, or only if not true beyond a reasonable doubt? Like, there is a 20% chance that X raped Y, is calling X a rapist libel?

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby WibblyWobbly » Sun May 26, 2013 2:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Do libel laws work like civil or criminal court? In the burden of proof sense. That is, is it libel/slander if what you said is just barely probably not true, or only if not true beyond a reasonable doubt? Like, there is a 20% chance that X raped Y, is calling X a rapist libel?

Defamation law is primarily a civil matter, although there is such a thing as "criminal defamation" - it appears to be a state-by-state thing, with only a fraction of states having laws on the books. Burden of proof is civil in scope; the plaintiff must prove that a false statement caused actual damage (although defamation per se exists which assumes damage by the very nature of the statements made), but the proof doesn't have to rise to the level of criminal court, IIRC.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun May 26, 2013 4:46 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:The population can BELIEVE whatever it wants, but the accused shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as if he was trial and found guilty.

Correct. He should not be sentenced to judicial punishment.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby dudiobugtron » Mon May 27, 2013 6:59 am UTC

Magnanimous wrote:Think of it this way: before the trial you know roughly how probable it is that they're guilty. Statistics say the rate of false/unfounded rape accusations is somewhere around 8%, but that's very hard to measure. ...

The National Violence Against Women Survey came up with 37% of accusations being prosecuted. and the DoJ reported the the conviction rate at trial of 48%.

Are these 'statistics' really true? 92% of people accused of rape are guilty*, when only 37% of people accused of rape get prosecuted?

That's such a huge disparity that my despair for the plight of humanity would increase drastically if I thought it were true. As it is, however, I'm more inclined to wonder how on Earth they came up with 92%. What statistics did you find that supported that number?

*Or, for clarity's sake, "not innocent".

Belial wrote:You guys know that the court system isn't in the business of proving innocence, right? Like, the reason they use "not guilty" instead of "innocent" is because the only truth they're attesting with the verdict was "we couldn't absolutely prove the dude did it"?

So maybe quit acting like it's ludicrous to acknolwedge that the simple fact of a not-guilty verdict in a notoriously hard-to-prosecute type of case doesn't prove that much?

There is technically a big difference between "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt". But in practice, in my understanding, most jurors don't really distinguish between the two as much as some civil liberties proponents might wish.
Image

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Роберт » Tue May 28, 2013 8:08 pm UTC

snow5379 wrote: You give a date rape victim your phone number right?

Why not? They already knew each other before the alleged rape. They may well have had each other's phone numbers already.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Vash » Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:07 pm UTC

To be fair, I wouldn't know; I'm not a rapist. I always think of rapists as unattractive people who need to use devious means to have sex. Why would you steal something that you can get for free?


Hmm, well, I'm not really too sure about the research, but I saw one study saying that rapists were mainly a small, high-functioning sociopathic subset of the population who could blend in socially, and another that rapists tended to already be successful with women. It makes sense to me that if someone isn't successful romantically in the first place that they'd have no easier time approaching someone to rape them. On the other hand, someone who already has a lot of sex may feel entitled, for example. Just because one can get sex does not mean that it's a given. Probably entitlement is not enough of a motivation for rape if someone is not a sociopath, though.

Negated wrote:
snow5379 wrote:Should ALL criminal accusations go to court? I'm thinking yes? Why don't they?

What makes you think overloading courts is a good idea? The justice system is lengthy and expensive enough as is. I don't want cases brought to court just to get thrown right out of it. That is a massive waste of time and taxpayers' money.


I have to disagree with "overloading courts" being a concern in and of itself. I wouldn't phrase it that way. I know you didn't really mean that, of course. Theoretically, all actual crimes should be tried in court, and that would mean a lot more trials than there are in general. However, overloading the courts with cases that would not go anywhere is certainly not a good idea.

Darryl wrote:
Zamfir wrote:Do Americans take ghb themselves? Here it's something people cook up at home for partying. If it's in your blood, it would be hardly evidence that someone gave it to you.

Whether or not she took it of her own volition, she would not have been competent to consent.


I don't know that much about GHB, but is it very evident if someone is out of it if they are on GHB? Probably a layperson could not for the most part identify it as the effects of GHB, so they would probably assume it is alcohol. That complicates things somewhat.

Also, she could have taken the GHB after she had sex, could have inflicted the injuries on herself, etc. That's a huge reason why rape cases suck. It can be hard to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt, because the source of the evidence is not always clear.

As for mere belief, it's hard to say what the probability of someone lying in a rape case is (maybe it could be better known with a detailed look). The FBI statistic is that ~24% of rape claims are false, but this is a very imperfect statistic. Baseline, most people probably would not lie about something like that, though. The particulars can mitigate this fact, but not entirely. (How much? I won't think about it now.)

snow5379 wrote:So let me get this straight: if you have trust in the police, who refused her a trial, you're a rape apologist? With what we know the police wouldn't give her a trial so something must be seriously wrong with her claims. Look her grab for money (which reports say she was after since day 1) is just distasteful and it really does look like the whole thing is going nowhere fast. Anyway you could try to slam him for bringing her home drunk: that would be more fruitful than arguing over evidence that may or may not exist and none of us have seen.

Also it's not the first time the victim has pulled this and has tried similar stunts in the past. She's also has a law degree. Various sources are also saying at the time of the incident she underwent an examination showing no foreign DNA on her and repeatedly texted Ebanks. You give a date rape victim your phone number right?


Post sources?

doogly wrote:
snow5379 wrote:You give a date rape victim your phone number right?

Yes of course you do. The plan is to convince her and everyone else that it wasn't rape, it was just some sex that was perfectly normal, maybe a bit regrettable, certainly not criminal.


I suppose that makes sense if it is still unprovable or if there is evidence that they had sex anyway. Usually leaving evidence trails is risky because you don't really know how it will turn out, but this seems so clearly useless. Also, even if it was not, he could just be a bad criminal.

Also, depending on whether she texted Ebanks before or after it might modify things slightly. Not hugely, though. Possibly not even at all.

CorruptUser wrote:Quotes from Snow

I'm pretty sure she's just making things up since right off the bat she was looking to gain money from it. Furthermore it's 2 years after the fact so, conveniently enough for her, the cops can't double check her nonexistent physical "evidence." Meanwhile the millionaire basketball player who probably does a different chick every week, and who has no need to rape anyone, is helping police in any way he can. I mean 1+1=?

I mean, hell, if getting drunk at a bar and hitting on the richest looking guy there could make you a millionaire because of feminist "rape culture" then there is something wrong with society and the way we look at gender and rape in general. I really hate to bring this up but if the genders here were reversed, and she was the millionaire female basketball player... but these girls read all sorts of stuff on the internet and think they can get away with anything just because of their gender. It's sad really.


Denial.
Assuming that women search out rich beautiful people to frame for rape.
Referring to rape culture as 'feminist propaganda'.


That person didn't say "propaganda." They did speak dismissively about feminist and rape culture.

I think disagreeing that rape culture exists or on whether or not feminism is correct is a difference in viewpoint and not necessarily attributable to rape apologia. That is unless you can provide incontrovertible evidence of rape culture as a phenomenon, which no one can. It's more of a social/philosophical viewpoint. I do believe there is some rape culture myself, but it's not necessarily outside of the realm of reason to disagree.

I also think that snow has been stating claims overly absolutely and without evidence. I would not necessarily go for "rape apologist," but their viewpoint is not really legitimate. They have brought up some good points. It's annoying to sort through the absoluteness, etc. though. Snow, please calm down and try to make a more balanced argument. Also, post sources.

Instead of inflating my post to epic proportions, I'm going to skip the rest.

CorruptUser wrote:At the risk of going on a tangent, what do you do in a particularly bizarre case that happened a few months ago; a woman was raped, DNA evidence was able to prove it was the guy, except he had an identical twin brother. One was clearly guilty, both had equivalently strong/weak alibis. Possibly both were guilty for all we know. Do you convict both? Neither? Put both on parole or other monitoring system? Let each serve half of the sentence? If you say 'innocent till proven guilty', both go free. And the evil twin strikes again. If neither are more likely guilty than the other, both go free again. Then the evil twin strikes again... Is society better off letting the evil twin roam free than risking jailing the good twin, or protecting the largest number of people even if that means one innocent suffers for a crime he didn't commit? It's easy to say 'innocent till proven guilty' when you won't be the next victim, just as it's easy to say 'hang them high!' when it's not your neck in the noose.


To address this, I'd have to look at the fact that I think the justice system is very flawed in the first place. It is worth taking action regarding both of them. However, it probably should be psychological treatment for both of them at the bare minimum.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:16 pm UTC

To be fair, I wouldn't know; I'm not a rapist. I always think of rapists as unattractive people who need to use devious means to have sex. Why would you steal something that you can get for free?


Sorry but this just struck me. Has the writer of this sentence never ever seen a Bond film made before the 90's? James Bond is a guy with no qualms about forcing himself on a woman. Which must be because he's hideous and can't get laid...
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby dudiobugtron » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:38 pm UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:
To be fair, I wouldn't know; I'm not a rapist. I always think of rapists as unattractive people who need to use devious means to have sex. Why would you steal something that you can get for free?


Sorry but this just struck me. Has the writer of this sentence never ever seen a Bond film made before the 90's? James Bond is a guy with no qualms about forcing himself on a woman. Which must be because he's hideous and can't get laid...


The point you are trying to make appears to be that James Bond is a good counter-example to the opinion you quoted. I have a few issues with this:

1) You know that James Bond is a fictional character, right?
2) In most (all?) of those cases, the fictional victims did not appear to consider Bond's behaviour to be rape.
3) Everything else in the movies are fictional too, and nothing else about the James Bond films is particularly realistic either. You should not try to learn anything about how reality works from watching James Bond.
4) In my (subjective) opinion, most of the James Bond actors were pretty hideous looking at the time.

Spoiler:
In case it's not apparent, I'll explicitly state that I do not think it's OK to behave like James Bond towards anybody, let alone women. I also do not think that the viewpoint about rapists needing to resort to rape to have sex is correct.
Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:42 pm UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:In my (subjective) opinion, most of the James Bond actors were pretty hideous looking at the time.
Which is doubly funny given how influential the character has been on a fairly large subset of the worlds definition of masculinity.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:53 pm UTC

Sean Connery, ugly?

Steve Buscemi is ugly. Danny Devito is ugly. Sean Connery was at worst 'above average'.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:04 pm UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:1) You know that James Bond is a fictional character, right?
2) In most (all?) of those cases, the fictional victims did not appear to consider Bond's behaviour to be rape.
3) Everything else in the movies are fictional too, and nothing else about the James Bond films is particularly realistic either. You should not try to learn anything about how reality works from watching James Bond.
4) In my (subjective) opinion, most of the James Bond actors were pretty hideous looking at the time.

Spoiler:
In case it's not apparent, I'll explicitly state that I do not think it's OK to behave like James Bond towards anybody, let alone women. I also do not think that the viewpoint about rapists needing to resort to rape to have sex is correct.

Totally not sure what your point is here aside from "James Bond isn't a rapist" which I guess is perfectly OK for you to believe if that's what you want to do. He has done things that are pretty easily classifiable as forcing himself on a woman, but whatever. Nothing interpersonal anyone does in fiction films can be compared to reality. I forgot. I should have used the example of a football player who's attractive and rich but rapes someone anyway just cause he feels like it on a given day. I can probably cite actual cases of that actually happening.

Also I saw Skyfall for the first time last night and it was amazing.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby dudiobugtron » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Sean Connery, ugly?

Steve Buscemi is ugly. Danny Devito is ugly. Sean Connery was at worst 'above average'.

Sorry, every time I try to visualise him I can only see the orange-tanned Spock-haired version from "You Only Live Twice".
Danny Devito was pretty hot in 'The Lorax' though... ;)

Fantastic Idea wrote:Totally not sure what your point is here aside from "James Bond isn't a rapist" which I guess is perfectly OK for you to believe if that's what you want to do. He has done things that are pretty easily classifiable as forcing himself on a woman, but whatever. Nothing interpersonal anyone does in fiction films can be compared to reality. I forgot. I should have used the example of a football player who's attractive and rich but rapes someone anyway just cause he feels like it on a given day. I can probably cite actual cases of that actually happening.

James Bond isn't a rapist because in the made-up fictional world he inhabits, the people he has sex with apparently want to have sex with him. If a person did what James Bond did in reality, the people he did it to would probably not want have sex with him, and then they would be a rapist. James Bond is a fictional character in a completely unrealistic situation. Yes real examples would have been better.
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:02 am UTC

Forcing someone to begin sexual relations with you is sexual assault whether they end up liking it later or not.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby dudiobugtron » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:52 am UTC

'Forcing' is a loaded term though. The use of physical force is highly correlated with sexual assault, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient.
Similarly with overt consent - while not giving overt consent is highly correlated with sexual assault, it isn't necessary or sufficient either

In a fictional world, it is easy to create a situation that looks like sexual assault, but actually isn't. My claim is that that is the type of situation that they are portraying in the Bond films.

Note however that if the scenes actually turned out to recordings of real life events, then I would agree that they would be good evidence to use in a rape case against the person in Bond's role.

Note also that two situations could look exactly the same, and yet one could be sexual assault, and the other not - depending on whether there is actual consent. (Not on whether there is overt consent, or lack of violence etc...)

Spoiler:
Note, I am not trying to condone any of Bond's behaviour, nor argue that we should act like that in any way. I'm also not suggesting that people who do that sort of thing in real life aren't horrible people - they probably are. It's just pretty clear that the scenes in the Bond films aren't intended to be, or actually, portraying rape. Even if they could be used without alteration in a different movie to portray rape.
Image

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Woman Sues NBA player For Alleged Rape (Trigger Warning)

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:54 pm UTC

I want to apologize for how far off topic my offhand comment took this thread.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests