DATE RAPE! DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?

CookingWithCarlo.com ^ | Oct 16 2003 | Carlo3b Dad, Chef, Author

[carlo3b]

 
DATE RAPE!  DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?

Did he or didn't he?  Has our compassion for an alleged victim in a particular type of crime, allowed our Bill of Rights to go past due! 

Did she or didn't she?  It appears there are more the a few Americans that are now beginning to rethink the compassionate laws that awarded unquestioned protections, to unproved accusations. It has become obvious that these well meaning measures may have gone too far. Has today's culture allowed itself to believe only one side of a conflict where a woman is considered, without ever hearing the other? Are all men sexual brutes?

Would a woman lie?

"It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses (of men) exhibit their tyranny."
-James Fenimore Cooper

Men, I learned early on were by nature, bigger, stronger, and much more aggressive than women. The men in my life, great grandfather, grandfathers, uncles, and even neighbors were our protectors, safe keepers, and providers. They were to be emulated, learned from, looked up to. Men were a defense against anything that threatened us. Most men that I knew were good. They loved us, even if they never really said so. I loved the men in my life, because they were good, because the women in my home wouldn't allow them to behave any other way.

Where all men good, and by default, were all boys nice guys? Of course not, and I found that out the hard way.

"If you can learn from hard knocks, you can also learn from soft touches."
-Carolyn Kenmore

I was taught from birth, that women were always looking out for my best interest. My mother, grandmother, great grandmother, aunts and yes even my teachers were all there to help me. I didn't always agree with them, but I never for a moment doubted their veracity. Women were the soft ones, the good smelling, caring and tender people in our lives. Why would they want to hurt me, I loved them and they all loved me.

Were all women, and by default all little girls, always good?  Well, as I grew up, I began to discover that girls much like boys, are not always nice. So what happened to make things change?  That came later.

"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: 'It's a girl.'"
-Shirley Chisholm

Although women were smaller, and mostly weaker in a physical sense, they were not pushovers. Our mothers, and all adult women in our family were the benevolent dictators over everything within the home and family, and that included the men and boys. I didn't have any sisters, but my friends did and they became wiser, a lot sooner in the ways of the world where females were concerned than I did. What I didn't grasp until much later was that not all females were like my mother, and that mothers, acted like females to other people, but never us.

"We create an environment where it is alright to hate, to steal, to cheat, and to lie if we dress it up with symbols of respectability, dignity and love."
-Whitney Moore, Jr.

Can and do men and boys take advantage of smaller and weaker people? Yes, of course. Does that include women? Absolutely!  Does that include sex?  Without a doubt.

Ergo, all men always take advantage of everyone, especially women, in every case, without question, were sex is concerned!

That is absolutely absurd, and would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. However, in most states in The United States of America, in the case of an accusation of sexual assault, a man is considered guilty, and is treated as such, until and if he can prove otherwise. However, he must never accuse the accuser of any motive other than of that misinterpretation of his disgusting intentions.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Not a chance. Presumed innocence? Not in the current court of public opinion, and not in too many criminal courts of law either. A man is not allowed to proffer any questions or produce evidence of a pattern of behavior that casts any doubt on the accuser.

Thus, a man must present a defense that casts him as unethical, uncaring, and a vicious beast who perpetuates the accusation, promotes the stereotype, and confirms in public the appearance of guilt, beyond a shadow of doubt.

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
-Albert Einstein

Does it happen, that men, evil men, not only can and in some cases, do rape and brutalize women? You bet they do and when proven, the law should treat them in the strongest punishments allowable by law. A woman should be given an unencumbered opportunity to bring to justice anyone, that takes advantage of them and their bodies. They should be allowed to bring into court any pertinent evidence that casts the perpetrator in as damaging a light as the law allows.

It is true that filthy crimes of this nature are seldom committed in public where witnesses can collaborate an accusation.  However, this is true of most serious crimes, and that unfortunate fact, does not change the burden of proof.

A man, or a woman for that matter, presumably enters court innocent until proven otherwise. In such cases the accuser can bring into court any past behavior or a propensity to commit such a crime. Thus is the character of our court system, and the reason we have juries of our peers, to weigh the facts, and dispense the entitled punishment, or exonerate. Nothing should interfere with the process that we have in place.

This is not a unique position that I propose.. It was the law of the land...

[fqued]

I'll buy that. But that's now what Nietzsche said. Plus, he thought God was dead. He's probably changed his mind about that by now, though.

very droll

[Dadofmany]

Open your eyes, this is not about her behavior, but more about "the scene of the crime". It is possible that something else might have ocurred to change or alter the once existing evidence.

The defendant has a right to any possible witness.

Think of it as tracing steps, it is not as if they are going into her past.

[carlo3b]

DEAR JANE! I hope it is my thread that you are using as a vehicle of response and not me that you directed your observations about the priestly pedophiliac. I would gladly hold them down as you dissect their ungodly members. Unfortunately this case doesn't appear to have any clear victims as those innocent alter boys.

[carlo3b]

"Homeschool Mom Syndrome" :-)

I'll assume, Carlo3b = C- in spelling ...one tough teacher/mom :(

[aruanan]

No, Nietzsche was wrong. There ARE facts. Often we don't know what they are, but the facts exist nonetheless. If facts don't exist, then nothing exists.

As I said earlier, one can posit with reasonable certainty that there are "things" that have an existence and that they exist independently of our perceptions of them. However, "fact" is itself a concept, a mental construct, that is used to describe certain categories of experience or intellectual operations. Also, look at your last sentence for a good joke.

[autoresponder]

Last defense law firm that tried that crud on me cost the defendant over $17 millon dollars.

Was not even close; they settled out of court and hit the idiot defendant for over $5 million in legal costs.

Never mess some people.

Some here on FreeRepublic already know of that case.

No brag, just fact!

[aruanan]

How about "there are no uninterpreted facts" [outside the Mind of God], which acknowledges the existence of facts, but also acknowledges that our perception of facts is filtered through finite minds.

Or, there is no uninterpreted human experience of reality.

[carlo3b]

Huh?

[fqued]

was that in trial, or at a preliminary hearing?

I am also a lawyer, here in Colorado, and the rape shield statutes seem to be written to only apply in an actual trial. although one could argue that the spirit of the law applies to a prelim, that is not nec what the statute states.

You may have won big bucks, but again, was it in trial or at a prelim hearing? and in what state? and how was the statute written?

Seems also that you are talking about a civil suit, this here is a criminal case prelim hearing. Was your situation a civil suit?

[fqued]

[I wrote:] How about "there are no uninterpreted facts" [outside the Mind of God], which acknowledges the existence of facts, but also acknowledges that our perception of facts is filtered through finite minds.

[you replied:] Or, there is no uninterpreted human experience of reality.

And . . .? If you are correct, I am not at all certain that this in any way contradicts, alters, illumines, etc. what I wrote. I take it you are agreeing with me?

However, once we start dealing with the basis of human experience, there are certain UNDENIABLE truths.
example: the Law of Non-Contradiction. The LNC cannot be denied, for the very statement of denial invokes the LNC.
Once we get past certain undenial truths, then we can examine how we interpret reality. My statement that there are no un-interpreted facts in no denies that our perceptions of reality do not closely approximate reality, which does, indeed, appear to be the case.

[autoresponder]

"tracing steps" = "not going into her past"

"is" = "is"

junk all the existing statutes

anything is legal

where do you park your Jaguar?

[autoresponder]

Love to go up against that 2 bit defense attorney.

Have blown off far better shysters.

Good for my portfolio.........

[fqued]

Love to go up against that 2 bit defense attorney

She ain't no two-bit attorney. . . check her CV. You might be surprised. And as a CRIMINAL defense attorney, she is mighty fine, and also probably mighty expensive.

Insulting her is all fine and good, but educated insults do better and hit harder.

[mamaduck]

I don't "do" grades. With homeschooling any mistake is merely a learning experience. No conclusions, no judgments. Cool, huh? :-)

[autoresponder]

Slick, Hillary, and one Florida attorney were all supposed be hot stuff.

Bill allegedly taught Constitutional Law at a university but claimed he was not a Constitutional "scholar" when things got real dicey; empeached, disbarred, no SCOTUS access.

Give any sharp 15 year old kid a copy of The Federalist and let them read it and study it; not many mysteries there.

Hillary was supposed to be on of the top 100 or top 10 attorneys in the US or somethin' according to who spewed it.

Not researched myself, but I saw credible threads here on FR stating she was only a "rainmaker" and rarely appeared in court herself or handled any serious cases.

Both Slick and Hill were alleged "geniuses"; both turned down for basic MENSA which only requires a dinky mid-130s M certified testing.

Many here on FR with much higher IQs and many with equal or lower that are much "smarter".

JFK had more horsesense with only 119.

He had lots of faults too, but he had more basic smarts and genuine interest in the security of the USA, unlike Teddy.

Hard to admit, but I have some admiration for the unbiased journalism of Maria Shriver compared to Katie Couric.

As for F. Lee and his OJ trial showpiece, most know of his little problems in Florida.

I cannot comprehend how those so high as F. Lee can do such dumb things.

But then look what Slick did on live camera at Ron Brown's funeral and on that jet video with the flight attendant with the camera there clicking away.

But he survived it and went on to 100K-200K speeches abroad.

I would not trade places with him for any amount of money or power or glory.

Whatever "glory" and "power" is.

Talk about selling your soul; marrying Hillary is a bridge way too far!

Tempting to mention some big attorneys and their own local histories but that would be unwise.

Enough of that.

I find the FR "spellcheck" and "grammarcheck" buttons are not working again.......

More coffee.

Forget who posted that interesting odd FR thread on coffee several weeks back.

Good coffee is more important then good beer.

I know that's a wild statement, but there is some merit to it.

[fqued]

Good coffee is more important then good beer.
I know that's a wild statement, but there is some merit to it.

Not a wild statement at all. Two of coffee's great assets:
1) it is a great pain-killer and accentuates the effects of pain-killers. Caffeine is often added to tylenol--might even be that the caffeine is the more effective pain-killer.
2) brain food--stimulates the brain, but appears to have NO deleterious side-effects (as long as the drinker doesn't have 10 cups a day).

[OldFriend]

My Jaguar is in the garage, why do you ask?