Chauvin Murder Trial

[Irreligious Atheist]

Kobe Bryant's accuser Katelyn Faber wasn't on trial either, but it was fair to point out that she had sex hours after the supposed rape by Kobe, the semen of several men was in her underwear, she bragged about the encounter with Kobe to several people, her friend says that Katelyn had a plan to lure Eminem into bed to get money from him, and on and on. Maybe I'm biased because Kobe is my favourite player ever, but even if he was guilty, he still should have gotten off because of how  shit she was as a human being with her supposed plans to lure Eminem out of money by accusing him of rape.

George Floyd was not an innocent bystander out for a nice day on the town. He was high off his ass on fentanyl and other drugs, and he was driving, putting people's lives at risk. No, he did not deserve to die, but he wasn't being an innocent angel that day either. We wouldn't be calling him that if he had hit and killed someone with his car as he was driving under the influence.

(bold mine)

I take a dim view of rape apologists. I advise you not to do this again.

Boru

Rape apologist? You mean innocent until proven guilty apologist? Guilty people SHOULD get off. That's the way the system is set up. Better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent is locked up. It's the worst legal system in the world, except for every other one. It's the best we have at this point, until we have mind reading tech that is 100 percent fool proof.

You completely took that out of context to virtue signal. She had some kind of bruising, but Kobe has a pretty big black mamba. If he raped her, he absolutely should still get the benefit of the doubt because she bragged about it and her own friends don't believe her and said she planned to lure other celebs into bed to get money from them. What's so controversial about that? The same happened with one of MJs accusers. They were the type to go after money in the past, so no one believed them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Saying that another person should get off for a crime they committed on account of how another person is shitty has absolutely nothing to do with any notion of innocent until proven guilty. It's just shielding a garbage thought behind a decent one.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Saying that another person should get off for a crime they committed on account of how another person is shitty has absolutely nothing to do with any notion of innocent until proven guilty.  It's just shielding a garbage thought behind a decent one.

Nope. Rape is extremely hard to prove, and when you've got a woman with a bunch of different guys semen in her underwear, who has sex with someone else directly after the rape, brags about what happened, has mental issues, and who's friends call a liar who was planning on accusing other men, your credibility is quite near to zero, and if you're raped, you better have some pretty darn concrete evidence or I'm going to laugh at you. Even if the sex is videotaped, we would still need to rule out that it wasn't roleplay that she asked for, because that would not be surprising in the least.

AreWeThereYet was offended when I brought this accuser up earlier, but really, she should be shitting on her with me. Fake accusers like this make things way harder for actual victims of rape, who I stand with. Not trainwrecks who are clearly out for the money. And yes, I will stand up for anyone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll gladly defend rapists, murderers, etc if concrete evidence is not present. Everyone, no matter what they've done, deserves a proper defense.

[arewethereyet]

Saying that another person should get off for a crime they committed on account of how another person is shitty has absolutely nothing to do with any notion of innocent until proven guilty.  It's just shielding a garbage thought behind a decent one.

Nope. Rape is extremely hard to prove, and when you've got a woman with a bunch of different guys semen in her underwear, who has sex with someone else directly after the rape, brags about what happened, has mental issues, and who's friends call a liar who was planning on accusing other men, your credibility is quite near to zero, and if you're raped, you better have some pretty darn concrete evidence or I'm going to laugh at you. Even if the sex is videotaped, we would still need to rule out that it wasn't roleplay that she asked for, because that would not be surprising in the least.

AreWeThereYet was offended when I brought this accuser up earlier, but really, she should be shitting on her with me. Fake accusers like this make things way harder for actual victims of rape, who I stand with. Not trainwrecks who are clearly out for the money. And yes, I will stand up for anyone who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll gladly defend rapists, murderers, etc if concrete evidence is not present. Everyone, no matter what they've done, deserves a proper defense.

Moderator Notice
8.  Trolling is not allowed. Troll behavior includes, but is not limited to repeatedly:

1. • Making provocative posts.
     
   • Making posts that are unrelated / irrelevant to the thread or conversation subject.
     
   • Disrupting normal discussion.
     
   • Provoking specific members by referring to them negatively on your profile/signature.
     

Consider this your official warning.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You heard it here IA thinks guilty people should be allowed to continue to victimize people without consequence. Fuck all the legitimate victims and their pain. Society should concern itself with potential murders and rapists because some people might fake being a victim. Just peachy 

[Irreligious Atheist]

You heard it here IA thinks guilty people should be allowed to continue to victimize people without consequence. Fuck all the legitimate victims and their pain society should concern itself with potential murders and rapists because some people might fake being a victim. Just peachy 

You should check out To Kill a Mockingbird. It's a really good film. Maybe that will alter your perspective just a little, but probably not.

Just to make it clear for everyone since I've been warned and I'm not really allowed to defend myself properly in this instance, I'll just say this. SA is bad. S. offenders are bad. I realize that the subject of SA can bring up past trauma for some and I never meant to trigger anyone who has suffered from SA in the past. Out in the real world, it doesn't matter if you can prove it. You know what you went through and that's all that should matter to the people in your life. They should support you in whatever way you need. In a court of law though, the evidence is what matters, and friends saying that you planned on framing other celebs for the same crime is about as relevant as relevant can be. That type of information needs to be included in a trial. If someone has accused someone in the past wrongfully and then something does happen to them one day, you have the boy who cried wolf effect. 

Letting guilty people go home is a necessity. It's the only way you can protect those who actually are innocent of any accusations. The freedom of innocent people is of the utmost importance. Sacrificing justice in some cases is a necessity to protect the truly innocent. It's a necessary evil, and it's what makes our system of law better than the 3rd worlds.

Anyways, I hope the mods don't consider this post to be trolling because I've tried to be as PG as possible and just wanted to make it clear that I'm not in any way supporting SA. I will leave this subject be now.

[Rev. Rye]

I can almost understand where IA is coming from. I know what it looks like to brand people guilty without looking closely into it, and here's an admittedly stylised, but, if anything, toned down depiction:



For the record, this was inspired by an actual case in 1933, where Brooke Hart, the son of one of San Jose, California's biggest families, was kidnapped. Two men named Harold Thurman and John Holmes were arrested for his kidnapping and murder. They confessed, although there's allegations that those confessions were coerced. Were they guilty? Were they innocent? Frankly, I don't fucking know for sure. We never got much of a chance to find out, because the second Hart's body was found, a mob of 3,000 people at minimum (possibly as high as 10,000) stormed the jail, spirited the two away, and hung them from a cork elm tree in a local park. And the state's governor Jim Rolph went as far as saying he'd pardon anyone prosecuted for the lynching.

That said, IA is, to say the least, going a bit far. If there's a significant room for doubt, feel free to defend them. But, since it's difficult to prove a case beyond a shadow of a doubt, especially with a crime like rape, there's a LOT of room for people to fall through the cracks who had convincing evidence against them, but who didn't actually get a trial yet, to be given a pass. For what it's worth, the rate of false accusation in rape cases (according to the largest study I've found yet) is about 5.5%. While too common to write off the possibility, it's nowhere near common enough to treat as a default assumption. Sometimes, there may be cases where there's a reasonable room for doubt, but sometimes, the evidence all points in one direction. Since I haven't given a tinker's damn about basketball since Michael Jordan left the Bulls, I legitimately don't know if Kobe's is one of the cases with room for doubt. IA certainly seems to be painting the case with that brush, but, then again, he's spent this whole thread going out of his way to defend Derek Chauvin, even after he was found guilty.

Everyone may deserve a defense, but that doesn't mean that their defenses are all equally valid. And if you're saying shit like

even if he was guilty, he still should have gotten off because of how shit she was as a human being

I think most reasonable people would agree you've gone totally off the grid. Putting them both in jail if they were both guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (and the accuser's behaviour went into the criminal) is reasonable. Saying that, even if he's guilty, he should have been set free (except maybe in cases of prosecutorial misconduct), well that's the area where any sane person says:

[The Architect Of Fate]

You should check out To Kill a Mockingbird. It's a really good film. Maybe that will alter your perspective just a little, but probably not.

I've literally read the book 18 times and no it has no effect on my perspective because the case in the book doesn't support your contentions and can be used to support mine.

Just to make it clear for everyone since I've been warned and I'm not really allowed to defend myself properly in this instance, I'll just say this. SA is bad. S. offenders are bad. I realize that the subject of SA can bring up past trauma for some and I never meant to trigger anyone who has suffered from SA in the past. Out in the real world, it doesn't matter if you can prove it. You know what you went through and that's all that should matter to the people in your life. They should support you in whatever way you need. In a court of law though, the evidence is what matters, and friends saying that you planned on framing other celebs for the same crime is about as relevant as relevant can be. That type of information needs to be included in a trial. If someone has accused someone in the past wrongfully and then something does happen to them one day, you have the boy who cried wolf effect. 

Pointless posturing 

Letting guilty people go home is a necessity. It's the only way you can protect those who actually are innocent of any accusations. The freedom of innocent people is of the utmost importance. Sacrificing justice in some cases is a necessity to protect the truly innocent. It's a necessary evil, and it's what makes our system of law better than the 3rd worlds.

Repeating your platitude doesn't help you lol 

Anyways, I hope the mods don't consider this post to be trolling because I've tried to be as PG as possible and just wanted to make it clear that I'm not in any way supporting SA. I will leave this subject be now.

Don't  count on it 

[Losty]

Letting guilty people go home is a necessity. It's the only way you can protect those who actually are innocent of any accusations. The freedom of innocent people is of the utmost importance. Sacrificing justice in some cases is a necessity to protect the truly innocent. It's a necessary evil, and it's what makes our system of law better than the 3rd worlds.

I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff you said, but I do agree with this.

even if he was guilty, he still should have gotten off because of how shit she was as a human being

This on the other hand is disgusting. If you cannot prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they must be found innocent regardless of whether or not they actually are innocent. The innocence of their victim is not relevant though. Being a shit human being doesn’t make someone less raped or less murdered. It doesn’t matter if the victim is the worst person in the world, if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime against them, that person should not get off.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Letting guilty people go home is a necessity. It's the only way you can protect those who actually are innocent of any accusations. The freedom of innocent people is of the utmost importance. Sacrificing justice in some cases is a necessity to protect the truly innocent. It's a necessary evil, and it's what makes our system of law better than the 3rd worlds.

I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff you said, but I do agree with this.

even if he was guilty, he still should have gotten off because of how shit she was as a human being

This on the other hand is disgusting. If you cannot prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they must be found innocent regardless of whether or not they actually are innocent. The innocence of their victim is not relevant though. Being a shit human being doesn’t make someone less raped or less murdered. It doesn’t matter if the victim is the worst person in the world, if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime against them, that person should not get off.

I know I said I was going to leave the topic alone, but I need to clear up this last point. You are completely misinterpreting what I posted. I was defending the justice system. I said nothing about he should be set free if proven guilty. You pulled that right out of thin air, probably looking for something to be outraged about. I meant based on the evidence that we had before us. When even your own friends don't believe you and talk about how you're nuts and planned to do this to other celebs, that's a big deal and that works against you majorly. When you're an unstable person and you suffer from schizophrenia like she does, fairly or unfairly, that could play a part in whether people think you're credible. When you admit to lying to the police like she did, first by lying about having car trouble, and then admitting you made up a story about Kobe making you go to the bathroom to wash your face, and you admit that you made up the story because you thought the police didn't believe you at the time and you thought adding that fake detail would make you more believable, that might hurt your credibility as well. If she had said that she just misremembered, that would one thing, but she literally admitted to intentionally adding fake details to her story to try to make it more believable to police. All these things add up. Obviously if I knew he was guilty, I'm not going to say let him go just to punish her for not being the best person. What do you think I am, a sociopath lol? I was clearly arguing for the legal system in first world western countries, which gives the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That entails that a heck of a lot of guilty people are going to get off. That's the system working. If Boru had just PMed me rather than jumping right to "You think rape is good hur dur", I could have cleared that up for him and this wouldn't have become a distraction from the Chauvin discussion.