shape
carat
color
clarity

Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
So someone's life should be ruined without proof or question is what you are advocating.

I don't understand what you are saying here, red. How is waiting until someone is ready to come forward with a story going to ruin someone's life more than coming forward earlier? And is it the responsibility of a crime victim (any crime, not only rape) to watch out for the rights of the person who perpetrated the crime by arranging the timing when he reports the crime of which he was a victim to the best advantage of the criminal? If the victim is scarred by a crime-perhaps he fears the mob-and must summon courage to report a crime-should he not be allowed time to ready himself to report it? Or must we care only for the feelings of the mobsters and their rights since they are presumed innocent?
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
That's not what I meant. Blaming feinstein has nothing to do with victim blaming. I don't think feinstein is to blame here, but I understand people being angry with her. What I don't understand is blaming Ford for waiting to come forward and/or not coming forward sooner. That was her choice, and she's entitled to it. That's the victim blaming I'm talking about. Which is only more clear now that @the_mother_thing shared her belief that not reporting a crime like this is "selfish". Gross, ignorant, and exactly the problem.

I said that was her choice, and choices have consequences ... good & bad. That’s not ‘victim blaming’; that’s a FACT.

I said she is accountable for her choice. I didn’t say “she had it coming”, “she shouldn’t have attended a drinking party”, “she should have worn something less-revealing”, etc. THAT is ‘victim blaming’. :roll:

Jenn, you are basically who I am talking about. You LIVE to blame rape victims for how their reaction to being raped didn't live up to your bizarre standards. I sincerely believe you to be ill, and therefore don't allow your responses to rattle me, but all I can really say regarding your bizarre fixation on perpetuating rape culture is, you and your views are grossly uninformed and mistaken.
**Edited, please do not use names without permission. One and only warning**, you are entitled to whatever opinions of me you choose to allow occupancy in your head. I’m just glad the rent’s cheap.

ETA (since you edited your post with more drivel) - rest assured, since you seem preoccupied with my wellness for some stalker-ish reason ... I’m not ill, nor am I ‘fixated on perpetuating rape culture’. I’m fixated on facts. When someone puts some forward with regard to THIS case, I’ll be happy to read them. Until then, it’s all conjecture, political opportunistic grandstanding by a party hell bent on tearing down anyone with an ‘R’ behind their name. And if you or anyone else who actually gave a damn about “rape culture” or “victim blaming” truly cared, you’d be calling out your own party for Feinstein’s actions which put this woman (who I am NOT dismissing as a ‘victim’) in the position she is in today. THAT is the disservice being done to women and victims of sex crimes; not what one random person on the internet thinks. :roll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
I don't understand what you are saying here, red. How is waiting until someone is ready to come forward with a story going to ruin someone's life more than coming forward earlier? And is it the responsibility of a crime victim (any crime, not only rape) to watch out for the rights of the person who perpetrated the crime by arranging the timing when he reports the crime of which he was a victim to the best advantage of the criminal? If the victim is scarred by a crime-perhaps he fears the mob-and must summon courage to report a crime-should he not be allowed time to ready himself to report it? Or must we care only for the feelings of the mobsters and their rights since they are presumed innocent?
Victims can take all the time the law in their state allows for prosecution. Laws care not for anyone's feelings no matter how much we all do. But the court of public opinion is something else entirely and can ruin someone's life without the alleged victim having to answer any questions.

Now that it's out she could file against him as I have read there is no statute of limitations in MD on this alleged crime against a minor. Someone else may know the definitive answer to that.
 

vintageloves

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
473
Ok. Let's try the left leaning SF Chronicle editorial board. Does this work for you?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...-disturbing-11th-hour-allegation-13230890.php


I expect a full investigation into allegations against Keith Ellison to be forthcoming otherwise Dems are hypocrites.

Keith Ellison is struggling in that race in part because of the allegations. And yes, if he wins, he should be replaced. The Democrats basically kicked Al Franken out of the Senate. I'm an independent, but I think Democrats have handled this issue at a party level better *recently.* I say recently, because I'm still bitter about the wagon circling around Bill Clinton.
 

vintageloves

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
473
Am I the only one who thinks this woman would have been laughed out of a police station? Things have changed since the early 80s. A lot. Heck, things have changed just in the past few years. If it's being dismissed as "drunk teens" now, imagine back then. A boy tried something, couldn't get it done, no harm, no foul-- that was the thinking of the day. She wasn't raped, what's the problem, right? I don't think she was selfish. I think she was a 15 year old girl who didn't want school to be a living nightmare.

Shouldn't victims be innocent until proven guilty, too? Lying under oath is a crime, right? So once she tells her story under oath on Monday, to say she's lying is saying she's guilty of a crime. Why is that ok but it's not ok to believe the allegations against Kavanaugh?
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,602
To say a victim is responsible for reporting in order to keep other people from being harmed takes all responsibility off the rapist and puts it right on the victim.

The epitome of victim blaming
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
To say a victim is responsible for reporting in order to keep other people from being harmed takes all responsibility off the rapist and puts it right on the victim.

The epitome of victim blaming
That is exactly how the law works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I am surprised this needs to be said.
 

OreoRosies86

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
3,463
To have an opinion of how a woman chooses to handle herself post-violation of her body is psychotic, and I don't mean that in a hyperbolic way. It's just massively abusive, destructive, disordered thinking.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
To have an opinion of how a woman chooses to handle herself post-violation of her body is psychotic, and I don't mean that in a hyperbolic way. It's just massively abusive, destructive, disordered thinking.
She can handle herself how she chooses. But to expect some sort of justice be done without prosecution of the alleged offender is massively disordered thinking.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
To say a victim is responsible for reporting in order to keep other people from being harmed takes all responsibility off the rapist and puts it right on the victim.

The epitome of victim blaming


That is exactly how the law works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I am surprised this needs to be said.

The victim is not the prosecutor. The victim does not represent the State.

:read:
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,602
She can handle herself how she chooses. But to expect some sort of justice be done without prosecution of the alleged offender is massively disordered thinking.
Who does?
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
The victim is not the prosecutor. The victim does not represent the State.

:read:
The prosecutor prosecutes the alleged crime that the alleged victim reports.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
Who thinks justice will be done without reporting and prosecution?
Anyone expecting Kavanaugh to withdraw or fail to be confirmed based on this allegation.
 

OreoRosies86

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
3,463
Edit: clarified above
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,029
She can handle herself how she chooses. But to expect some sort of justice be done without prosecution of the alleged offender is massively disordered thinking.

This feels like a straw man . I and others have clarified multiple times that we don't believe he should be jailed without trial. No one is saying that. No one has said anything even close to that.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
This feels like a straw man . I and others have clarified multiple times that we don't believe he should be jailed without trial. No one is saying that. No one has said anything even close to that.
But you do think his career should be ruined right? That is my point about the court of public opinion. He denies it happened. I want to hear them both testify, do you?
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Now that it's out she could file against him as I have read there is no statute of limitations in MD on this alleged crime against a minor. Someone else may know the definitive answer to that.

MD did pass a law extending the SOL for such crimes, but I don’t *think* it would apply to this particular scenario given the time that has passed. But I’m not a lawyer, so ... let me dig up a grain of salt for ya. :)

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/chapters_noln/Ch_12_hb0642T.pdf

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2017rs&id=HB0642


Shouldn't victims be innocent until proven guilty, too? Lying under oath is a crime, right? So once she tells her story under oath on Monday, to say she's lying is saying she's guilty of a crime. Why is that ok but it's not ok to believe the allegations against Kavanaugh?

She IS innocent (assuming she is telling the truth, of course). I’m not sure anyone is outright predicting that - if she testifies - she will be ‘lying’ in her testimony.

But IMO, this will come down to she said/he said. So let’s be honest here - there are a lot of questionable variables about this situation that quite frankly DO raise the eyebrows of reasonable people.

First off, she’s no dummy; she’s educated, a professor I believe, and a psychologist. Politics aside, I tend to think people who are educated and in the medical field (not necessarily professors though) are generally ‘reasonable’ people, until they prove themselves otherwise.

SHE wrote this letter, and SHE sent it to politicians. :doh: If she truly wished to remain anonymous, you have to ask: what reasonable person would send that letter to and entrust ANY politician - at THIS time and in this politically-charged environment, in a city FULL of liars and ‘leakers’ - to maintain one’s anonymity when those very people you sent it to are fighting to hang onto their seats amidst an election and have a track record for being liars and leakers? :confused:

Not I. :hand: I would be certain and assume - hell, I’d BET money (or diamonds) - it WILL get leaked. Yes, that is what this reasonable person would assume, and I can’t help but think that is what Ford may have assumed as well in an effort to appear victimized when her name finally came out or for politicians to make her appear victimized. I hope and pray I am wrong, but I have little faith in any politician and even less in those they prop up to make their point or further their agenda, and that is based on their track record.

Throw out more labels, continue ‘going lower’ than the politicians ... I don’t really care ... it’s really all water off this duck’s butt.
 
Last edited:

vintageloves

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
473
She IS innocent (assuming she is telling the truth, of course). I’m not sure anyone is outright predicting that - if she testifies - she will be ‘lying’ in her testimony.

But IMO, this will come down to she said/he said. So let’s be honest here - there are a lot of questionable variables about this situation that quite frankly DO raise the eyebrows of reasonable people.

First off, she’s no dummy; she’s educated, a professor I believe, and a psychologist. Politics aside, I tend to think people who are educated and in the medical field (not necessarily professors though) are generally ‘reasonable’ people, until they prove themselves otherwise.

SHE wrote this letter, and SHE sent it to politicians. :doh: If she truly wished to remain anonymous, you have to ask: what reasonable person would send that letter to and entrust ANY politician - at THIS time and in this politically-charged environment, in a city FULL of liars and ‘leakers’ - to maintain one’s anonymity when those very people you sent it to are fighting to hang onto their seats amidst an election and have a track record for being liars and leakers? :confused:

Not I. :hand: I would be certain and assume - hell, I’d BET money (or diamonds) - it WILL get leaked. Yes, that is what this reasonable person would assume, and I can’t help but think that is what Ford may have assumed as well in an effort to appear victimized when her name finally came out or for politicians to make her appear victimized. I hope and pray I am wrong, but I have little faith in any politician and even less in those they prop up to make their point or further their agenda, and that is based on their track record.
Throw out more labels, continue ‘going lower’ than the politicians ... I don’t really care ... it’s really all water off this duck’s butt.

Is she trying to appear victimized? She may have wanted to remain anonymous, but I have to agree with you that she knew there was a good risk of it being leaked. Given that she's willingly attached her name now to the accusation and is coming to testify under oath does not seem to me like she's playing the wounded bird. She seems completely reasonable and is owning up to her actions of sending the letter.

I don't know if I agree with the value judgement: reasonable people think this, reasonable people think that. I'm a reasonable person and nothing about this raises my eyebrows. That doesn't mean I think he's guilty, but I find nothing suspicious about her actions at all. If shes lying, it's because she's a liar, not because there's something inherently devious about not reporting it to the police, or writing an anonymous note, or anything else. Having been there, I get it.

I'm not sure what you mean about labels or going lower than the politicians. I've been nothing but respectful despite the fact that I have a pretty good case to get offended.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
Wait a minute, red. Let's start again.

House Cat said:

"To say a victim is responsible for reporting in order to keep other people from being harmed takes all responsibility off the rapist and puts it right on the victim."

You replied:

That is exactly how the law works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Then I said:

The victim is not the prosecutor. The victim does not represent the State.


My point was obviously that it was immaterial for you to mention the prosecution and that the burden of proof was on the prosecution since the victim did not represent the state. Yet you replied:

"The prosecutor prosecutes the alleged crime that the alleged victim reports".

I know who does what, red, but you are confusing the roles of the victim and the prosecutor. The prosecutor, as an officer of the court, has a sworn duty to uphold. The victim does not. The victim is not an officer of the court. The victim does not have a duty to prosecute a crime against committed against him. That's why he isn't called "the prosecutor".

Deb/AGBF



 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
Wait a minute, red. Let's start again.

House Cat said:

"To say a victim is responsible for reporting in order to keep other people from being harmed takes all responsibility off the rapist and puts it right on the victim."

You replied:

That is exactly how the law works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Then I said:

The victim is not the prosecutor. The victim does not represent the State.


My point was obviously that it was immaterial for you to mention the prosecution and that the burden of proof was on the prosecution since the victim did not represent the state. Yet you replied:

"The prosecutor prosecutes the alleged crime that the alleged victim reports".

I know who does what, red, but you are confusing the roles of the victim and the prosecutor. The prosecutor, as an officer of the court, has a sworn duty to uphold. The victim does not. The victim is not an officer of the court. The victim does not have a duty to prosecute a crime against committed against him. That's why he isn't called "the prosecutor".

Deb/AGBF



It is the responsibility of the victim to provide the information for a report and to be questioned. If you want to harm someone without the due process allowed them, be that a Senate hearing in this case or a court trial, then you are playing with the life and livelihood of another person and giving them no opportunity for a response. I don't agree with that at all.

If HCs point is to convict by public opinion then there is nothing more I can say to her.

Perhaps we should just drop this Deb.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
I'm not sure what you mean about labels or going lower than the politicians. I've been nothing but respectful despite the fact that I have a pretty good case to get offended.

Sorry, I didn’t mean that to be directed at you; rather, moreso the usual, collective bandwagon on here that fuels up whenever anyone with opposing opinions chimes in. My apologies. :wavey:
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
It is the responsibility of the victim to provide the information for a report and to be questioned. If you want to harm someone without the due process allowed them, be that a Senate hearing in this case or a court trial, then you are playing with the life and livelihood of another person and giving them no opportunity for a response. I don't agree with that at all.

Perhaps we should just drop this Deb.

Well, if you want to drop it between us, I'll stop after having my last word.

As you may know, I did a double major in political science and history and then went on to get a master's in history. I think my basic civics knowledge is sound. Why you persist in the belief that a crime victim is an arm of the State is beyond me. In my opinion, the victim of a crime has no duty to anyone but himself: not to the State and most definitely not to the criminal. Only if the victim reports the crime and becomes embroiled in legal machinery must the victim, naturally, respect the rule of law.

AGBF
:read:
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,602
It is the responsibility of the victim to provide the information for a report and to be questioned. If you want to harm someone without the due process allowed them, be that a Senate hearing in this case or a court trial, then you are playing with the life and livelihood of another person and giving them no opportunity for a response. I don't agree with that at all.

If HCs point is to convict by public opinion then there is nothing more I can say to her.

Perhaps we should just drop this Deb.
Red,

You are using public opinion against the victim. This is what bothers me so.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
Red,

You are using public opinion against the victim. This is what bothers me so.
I am sorry that it bothers you, truly I am. I firmly believe in the rule of law to protect both the victim and the accused.
 
Last edited:

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,029
But you do think his career should be ruined right? That is my point about the court of public opinion. He denies it happened. I want to hear them both testify, do you?

You seem particularly angry today, and are lashing out. If I was snappy earlier today, it wasn't at you, it was at a different poster who I find frustrating. Anyway, NO. I think he is a bad nominee, and that trump shouldn't be allowed to nominate someone who may have a say in his own case. I find the accusations plausible, but of course I want to hear from both of them. It's downright silly that you keep putting words in my mouth about wanting to see people ruined/justice done without hearings, etc.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,852
. Anyway, NO. I think he is a bad nominee, and that trump shouldn't be allowed to nominate someone who may have a say in his own case. I find the accusations plausible, but of course I want to hear from both of them. It's downright silly that you keep putting words in my mouth about wanting to see people ruined/justice done without hearings, etc.
In the eyes of liberals any nominees by Trump are no good. The Dimms said a few months ago that they would not vote YES no matter who Trump nominate for Justice of the Supreme Court.

LD, What do you meant by "who may have a say in his own case?" :confused:
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,029
In the eyes of liberals any nominees by Trump are no good. The Dimms said a few months ago that they would not vote YES no matter who Trump nominate for Justice of the Supreme Court.

LD, What do you meant by "who may have a say in his own case?" :confused:

There were definitely Dems who said that bc of how Merrick Garland was treated. Sorry, too many "he's" in my last post. I meant trump shouldnt be nominating anyone to scotus because there's a decent chance that issues of self-pardon/whether a president can be subpoenaed, etc will go up to scotus.

"His own case" = trumps own case
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
There were definitely Dems who said that bc of how Merrick Garland was treated. Sorry, too many "he's" in my last post. I meant trump shouldnt be nominating anyone to scotus because there's a decent chance that issues of self-pardon/whether a president can be subpoenaed, etc will go up to scotus.

"His own case" = trumps own case
He is the elected President and this is part of the job. Mueller is not done so you'll have to be content with him doing things presidents do until then. ;)) After that as well is my prediction.

Sorry I was snappy earlier.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top