As one civil-liberties lawyer, who is concerned about the sometimes vigilante attitude toward accused rapists, puts it: "Some people regard rape as so heinous an offense that they would not even regard innocence as a defense."
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-08/local/me-18595_1?pg=2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
He was right then and he's right now, but nobody cares because America hates men.
Women hate men, and men hate men.
Genius. Sums up the attitude of gender feminists perfectly.
btw aren't you going to write about the Peter Bacon case?
He's the guy who was unanamously cleared of rape by a jury in 45 minutes but due to the stigma has decided to change his name and move to the other side of the planet to start afresh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8338554.stm
I notice Dershowitz refers to a woman who is claiming she has been raped as a 'complaining witness'. Is that legal jargon, and the media has been using 'victim' all along? I notice the article was written in 1985, long before I became enlightened (i.e., an MRA), so it doesn't do any good to try and jog my memory.
"He was right then and he's right now, but nobody cares because America hates men."
It seems like the ACLU remains p.c.-silent on this kind of stuff. Am I wrong?
Norm said...
"He was right then and he's right now, but nobody cares because America hates men."
It seems like the ACLU remains p.c.-silent on this kind of stuff. Am I wrong?
Nov 4, 2009 10:45:00 PM
The ACLU has been pc silent about this.
Norm said...
I notice Dershowitz refers to a woman who is claiming she has been raped as a 'complaining witness'. Is that legal jargon, and the media has been using 'victim' all along? I notice the article was written in 1985, long before I became enlightened (i.e., an MRA), so it doesn't do any good to try and jog my memory
..................................
Did YOUR attorney EVER refer to your accuser as the "complaining witness".
I never once heard the accuser referred to anything BUT "the victim", and I interviewed at least a dozen attorneys.
It's one thing for the "media" to pronounce someone a "victim", but quite another to hear YOUR attorney do it.
America hates us all.
They are using women like the British used the Scots against the Irish. Divide and conquer.
you're kidding, SgtMom? Are you saying that even just based on the accusation and charge alone, your son's potential attornies were calling his accuser the 'victim'? I hope they don't do that is court!
Time to interview another dozen, I guess.
(I've never been accused myself.)
should say, "I hope they don't do that IN court."
Norm -
TALK to someone who has been accused!
I don't know how adult court goes down, but in juvenile court, the 'guilty until proven innocent' is NOT a joke.
Take just a quick minute to read this site - if you ain't scared, you ain't right...
http://www.paulstuckle.com/home/the-elimination-of-constitutional-rights
I was accused. My attorney NEVER referred to the liar as "the victim," although the douche bag prosecutor referred to her as nothing but.
Not for the first time, SgtMom has made a highly suspicious claim that leads me to believe that she isn't what she claims to be. Although admittedly she knows how to speak our language when it suits her.
Norm, note that this article was written several years before Dershowitz fully recognized the extent of the false rape problem and it's more "even-handed" than his later landmark article on the subject.
Sgt. Mom, the "victim" nomenclature is not appropriately used by your own attorney. That would raise a red flag with me and it would be enough to get a new attorney.
Archvist said...
Sgt. Mom, the "victim" nomenclature is not appropriately used by your own attorney. That would raise a red flag with me and it would be enough to get a new attorney.
Nov 5, 2009 7:18:00 AM
We did get a new attorney.
During the initial interview he sounded like a God Send. He really listened and lead us to believe he could save our son.
After the check was cashed he was worse than the first.
Take a moment to read this attorney's site - this is the first time I've seen the truth of how these cases REALLY work in print:
http://www.paulstuckle.com/home/the-elimination-of-constitutional-rights
This attorney sounds really good, he speaks what I personally know to be the truth. Glen Sacks even mentioned he thought he was a stand up guy. He may be, I don't personally know.
If you read client's comments about him, however...they too reflect my own personal experience with attorneys.
"He took my money then did nothing..."
Anonymous said...
Not for the first time, SgtMom has made a highly suspicious claim that leads me to believe that she isn't what she claims to be. Although admittedly she knows how to speak our language when it suits her.
Nov 5, 2009 5:04:00 AM
Speaking YOUR language? This sounds like something a feminist FRA denier would say.
Anonymous said...
I was accused. My attorney NEVER referred to the liar as "the victim," although the douche bag prosecutor referred to her as nothing but.
So what did your attorney call your accuser?
Her name, duh.
Since you just called me a feminist FRA denier -- which is typical behavior for you when meet skepticism -- perhaps you'd like to post the name and website of the lawyer who screwed over your son? Let's see some evidence that the events you've described even happened.
I challenged you to do that before, and you posted some legal gibberish that had no apparent real relation to any rape case.
Anonymous said...
I was accused. My attorney NEVER referred to the liar as "the victim," although the douche bag prosecutor referred to her as nothing but.
So what did your attorney call your accuser?
Nov 5, 2009 2:04:00 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Her name, duh.
Since you just called me a feminist FRA denier -- which is typical behavior for you when meet skepticism -- perhaps you'd like to post the name and website of the lawyer who screwed over your son? Let's see some evidence that the events you've described even happened.
I challenged you to do that before, and you posted some legal gibberish that had no apparent real relation to any rape case.
...............................
Where did THAT happen, Anon?
Please show me the 'gibberish' I posted for your clarification.
I didn't call you a FRA denier, Anon. You said I spoke 'our' language - meaning a male perspective.
Your insistence I am lying about a false rape accusation without any backing or verification IS Fem speak.
Pure and simple. Femspeak.
Tell you what. I'll post MY son's personal private information right after YOU post YOURS, Anonymous.
Speaking YOUR language? This sounds like something a feminist FRA denier would say.
That's where you called me an FRA denier. Words have meaning.
And I didn't dispute your claim that the rape accusation against your son was false. I disputed your claim that this incident even happened. You have made a series of very bizarre statements, concerning both your son's false accusation and your daughter's rape. (Do these people even exist?)
But that's okay; you do your thing, and others can judge whether or not you're credible.
Anonymous said...
"I disputed your claim that this incident even happened."
Nov 5, 2009 5:41:00 PM
I've also disputed the incident even happened - for 11 years now.
Hasn't done me a damn bit of good.
Other claims SgtMom has made on this blog:
-She was about to report her sister in law for molesting a child, but her sister in law beat her to it by falsely accusing her son of rape.
-Meanwhile her daughter was raped.
-SgtMom herself was also molested.
-And her dad killed a child molester in a bar for touching her mother.
-And she served in Vietnam, hence the moniker.
If all of this is true it's one hell of a coincidence!
Anonymous- I am a Viet Nam ERA veteran. Don't rewrite my history.
Women on their first enlistment were not sent into combat zones until the first Gulf war.
I go by the moniker "SgtMom" because, as all service members do, I took an oath to defend the Constitution.
I don't give a damn about women's rights, or men's rights - I care deeply about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, which are designed to protect THE INNOCENT irregardless of gender. (yes, that word again, "Nick").
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The other facts, while not in order, are true.
Quote:"If all of this is true it's one hell of a coincidence!"
Spoken like a crooked prosecutor.
How many innocent people have been sent to prison with those words?
Quote:"If all of this is true it's one hell of a coincidence!"
Spoken like a crooked prosecutor.
How many innocent people have been sent to prison with those words?
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
One thing I've learned about accusers and name callers, Anonymous - more often than not they themselves are guilty of what they accuse or name call.
Your stalking is a bit creepy.
"I don't give a damn about women's rights, or men's rights - I care deeply about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,"
so I assume you have never, at any point, advocated for women's rights?
Norm said...
so I assume you have never, at any point, advocated for women's rights?
Nov 7, 2009 1:03:00 AM
I've never been on board with feminists, Norm.
I was a stay at home mom for 16 years. I never understood how leaving your kids with strangers to pursue a job was 'better'.
I was put down and sneered at by other women for being "just a housewife", or asked "Why aren't you helping your husband?" by his friends. It was a financial hardship. My husband worked a LOT of over time, and I sewed my kid's clothes.
I believed it was my right as a woman to raise my own kids. So, yes. I 'advocated' for women's rights.
I don't regard men's roles superior to women's roles. Both genders vying for 'superior' male roles have resulted in destroyed families and delinquent kids. It's totally non PC to say that, but this is the internet - I'm gonna put that out there.
Call me a woman's right advocate.
I appreciate being 'allowed' out after dark. I'm glad I can wear pants instead of a skirt in sub zero weather. I'm relieved men are no longer free to make unwanted sexual remarks to me at work or in public - all things that were common when I was growing up.
If that's considered "advocating for women's rights" then the answer is yes.
"I appreciate being 'allowed' out after dark. I'm glad I can wear pants instead of a skirt in sub zero weather. I'm relieved men are no longer free to make unwanted sexual remarks to me at work or in public - all things that were common when I was growing up. "
Yeah, but those are not constitutional rights.
You made it sound as if you're some sort of 'gender-neutral' ghost.
Also as far as sexual remarks in public, I walked down Hollywood Blvd last night (11/5) and some girl asked me to remove her anal beads. Will you help me file a lawsuit for the trauma I suffered?
Colonel Norm said...
Yeah, but those are not constitutional rights.
You made it sound as if you're some sort of 'gender-neutral' ghost.
Also as far as sexual remarks in public, I walked down Hollywood Blvd last night (11/5) and some girl asked me to remove her anal beads. Will you help me file a lawsuit for the trauma I suffered?
Nov 7, 2009 5:21:00 AM
This compares to the Civil Rights Movement, PFc Norma.
Black WERE justifiable in their original claim for equality and rights.
They organized (with the aids of many white people) promoted 'awareness', presented facts, figures and truths, and eventually attained their goals.
With success came abuses. Guilt, blame, false claims and statistics became the norm.
What was once a noble cause has produced abuses. The complaining and demand for more, more and more goes endlessly on. The abused have become the abusers.
It doesn't mean blacks are now WRONG to enjoy buying a house where they want, to sit anywhere on a bus they want, to serve alongside their white counterparts in the military.
It just means they aren't entitled to jobs they don't qualify for or earn, or to abuse white people while claiming it's a 'hate crime' for white people to abuse them.
The women's rights movement has followed the same perverted path. I am not wrong to enjoy rights and freedom I was once denied.
I know when to say enough is enough, however. I hero worship my Grandfather and Dad. I adored by baby brothers. I have the world's best husband and my son's are my life.
Why would I EVER do anything to harm them?
I can no more defend you from that woman making street-gutter remarks than I was able to defend the women being called vile names on this discussion thread.
Point her out to me and I'll politely request her to stop - just as I did here. It will probably get the same result, but it isn't wrong to try.
I raised my sons to be decent human beings, and it never ceases to shock me how hateful and nasty BOTH genders are nowdays.
If your female boss says something like to to you, let me in on the million dollar lawsuit. If a client or customer speaks to you like that, and your complaints to management are ignored, let's get together and get rich.
Otherwise, I can only tell you what I've always been told - walk down Hollywood Blvd after dark and you get what you deserve.
Anonymous, here's my :) symbol for Beware: facetious remark.
I think Colonel Norm outranks "SgtMom!" But that won't stop the One-Woman Soap Opera.
"Black WERE justifiable in their original claim for equality and rights."
If you're trying to equate past (or present) oppression of blacks with 'oppression' of women, that is entirely ludicrous.
As has been shown scientifically, it is actually males who are at a disadvantage; this is true for all persons, throughout all of history, across all cultures; and 99% of species to boot (see Moxon).
The have only been three areas where, culturally speaking, women could even begin to be viewed as 'behind' men: In the U.S., they were denied the right to vote and to own property, and they did not generally have as much access to employment. But all of this does not amount to oppression - it was simply the way things were in the past, when culture was as it was as a matter of survival. This system worked quite well over a long period of time.
The duties of men and women were more distinct - men were the wage slaves (and mostly still are), and were included in the family only on sufferance (and mostly still are). If you are going to claim that women were oppressed in the past, then you would have to claim the same about men. But the fact is, neiter sex oppresses the other - the notion that they do, or ever have, is a figment of our imaginations created by feminist revision and rewriting of history.
As Moxon has said (paraphrasing), "It is always wrong to view past times through the eyes of the present...but that is precisely the mistake that we make...when we take off the feminist-tinted glasses, we see that neither sex has 'oppressed' the other...in fact, it makes no sense that they would, from an evolutionary perspective.
btw, who was forcing you to wear a short skirt? I assume you are familiar with the idea of 'fashion'.
Norm said...
"Black WERE justifiable in their original claim for equality and rights."
If you're trying to equate past (or present) oppression of blacks with 'oppression' of women, that is entirely ludicrous.
Norm, Norm, Norm -
---you missed the point,dear.
I compared the STAGES of the civil rights movement to the STAGES of the women's movement.
Stage 1 - it started out with legitimate gripes.
Stage 2 - it got ugly.
Stage 3 - changes slowly started to happen.
Stage 4 - 'leaders' started appearing, facts, stats, stories and accusations started flying- "the cause" became more important than "the truth".
Stage 5 - changes happened more rapidly - for better and for worse.
Stage 6 - abuse and over kill. It went from being a noble cause to being a bully pulpit.
Hopefully we're starting the final pendulum swing - or some catastrophic event will replace this as an issue.
..........................
btw, who was forcing you to wear a short skirt? I assume you are familiar with the idea of 'fashion'.
Nov 7, 2009 4:38:00 PM
I never said 'short skirt', Norm.
I was a Senior in High School before girls were 'allowed' to wear pants to school.
Polyester Pantsuits to be exact...
Seriously. There's a full write up in my yearbook.
I was sent to Minot AFB Dec 1971, and required to walk to work wearing regulation uniform - (NOT short)skirt, nylons and pumps --in -80 windchill.
Service women with my AFSC weren't "allowed" to wear fatiques unless they were on work detail.
Nixon proclaimed the first 'energy shortage' turning thermostats down. Ice formed on the exterior walls.
The men's uniforms were wool pants and thermal underwear.
ahhhh. The good old days....
@SgtMom
"I compared the STAGES of the civil rights movement to the STAGES of the women's movement."
Then by implication, you are equating oppression of blacks with women. Your attempting to hood-wink us is not well-disguised.
"I was a Senior in High School before girls were 'allowed' to wear pants to school. "
You still haven't told me what that has to do with rights.
I'd worry lots more about schoolboys being hit with rulers across the nuckles, being punched by their coaches, and stuff like that (and no, those things did not happen nearly as often to girls as to boys).
Going on about skirts is really digging deep to dredge up something resembling oppression.
And what the hell are men and boys "allowed" to wear? Seems to me that females have a hell of a lot more options than the guys in clothes . . . and pretty much everything else. You know why? Because that's how women want it. Don't get me started on that. You all trivialize real oppression when you start talking about skirts and shoes.
Post a Comment