Posted on 07/23/2004 3:32:50 PM PDT by sinkspur
While her previous sexual history will not be admitted, the judge has just ruled that any post-KB-sexual activity WILL be admitted.
Everything you've posted is 100% correct, including the statement about an insatiable sex drive in certain stages of bipolar or schizoaffective disorder.
The case should be thrown out.
I am no fan of rich, arrogant athletes, but these young women must learn to stay out of hotels with them if they dont want to do the deed.
When I was young and liberal, the concept that a woman just might have contributed something to her own sorry circumstances was blasphemy.
Has that changed?
I resemble that remark.
From my point of view, yep . . . from the POV of the still-stupid still-liberal, nothing has changed at all, women are always right, and men are always evil.
Embarrassing to contemplate our misspent youth, ain't it?
Of particular interest in the order, and not receiving a lot of comment so far, is the part regarding two of the "outcry" witnesses. These are the guys who will be offered to testify about the complaining witness's emotional state after the "assault". The general fact that they'd had a prior intimate relationship with her has been ruled admissible.
I did not mean you, I just have not seen much of a societal change in that feminist way of thinking. As long as female admirers keep going to their rooms, these cases will keep happening.
This case would long since have been dropped were it not for the probability that, in this PC ridden society we live in, the DA fears the wrath of the feminists {if he drops it} more than the scorn of his colleagues {if he prosecutes}.
She never should have run to his suite at that time of night, alone. What did she think they were going to do? Sit down and have tea?
She should have just gotten into a vehicle with some stranger, IMHO.
For what it's worth, the defense will offer evidence that the injury in this case occurs approximately 60 percent of the time in assault cases, and approximately 40 percent of the time in consensual acts.
The value of the "tearing" to prove assault has been grossly overstated.
A young woman does not go to a man's room at night and expect nothing to happen. She was either stupid or had her own agenda.
Years ago I was dating a girl who suffered a "date rape" after we had gone out a time or two. It took three weeks before I could even hold her without her shuddering. About 3 more weeks before she felt comfortable with physical intimacy.
It takes a real psycho to have sex within 24 hours of allegedly being raped.
True, it just means she has no credibility in her claims of rape.
She is even reported to say she knew Kobe would come on to her if she went up to his room, so she went up!!!
She may attempt a third suicide over this, but she most certainly is NOT the person to brand another a sexual predator, especially after her lap dance and face licking at a club the same night of the supposed rape.
For what it's worth, the last line of the court order is a subtle reminder that there's still time to bargain.
In days where "nice girls" were expected to say "No.", it was possible to assume that a "nice girl" wouldn't agree to having casual sex without strings and a man would be wary of any nice girl who did. In that case, it was possible to assume that if a "nice girl" cried rape, it really was rape. When the woman has a past sexual history, all of that becomes uncertain. If she gave consent to sex before, how do we know that she didn't give consent this time? And if we can't know that she didn't give consent, how can the man be convicted simply on her word, without other damning evidence that the sex was non-consentual? And given that we make a presumption of innocence, can anyone be convincted with that much uncertainty? To make matters worse, since it's become somewhat "normal" to consent to kinky sex that can leave marks, even bruises and scratches are not incontrovertable proof of a lack of consent. The loss of traditional dating and relationship culture has created a vaccuum and no reliable way of sorting out false rape accusations from true accusations.
Did Kobe Bryant rape that woman? Should I believe the promiscuous possible victim or the basketball star who cheated on his wife? In a context in which character should matter but no longer seems to, I have no way of knowing which one is the liar. It's quite possible that she was raped but I (and the jury) have no reason to assume that if she's given consent to so many others. It's a character issue and if she'd shown more character, perhaps she'd be more trustworthy. But I do know that "maybe he did and maybe he didn't" is not enough to convict on and shouldn't be.
The question is not whether it was right or wrong for Kobe Bryant to grab a woman and have his way with her if she didn't consent to it, no matter how promiscuous she is. Of course that's wrong, and that question conceals the real problem here.
The real problem is that we have two people telling a different story and one has to be a liar. If she is the liar, it wasn't rape and no crime was committed. Is the promiscuous woman a liar or is the adulterous basketball star? I wasn't there. The jury wasn't there. It is his word against her word and the jury needs to believe her beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point, character matters.
Perhaps she was raped and if the jury doesn't believe her, that's a shame. But it's always a shame when the proverbial little boy who cries wolf gets eaten by a wolf because nobody believes he's being attached by a real wolf. Like the little boy that cried wolf, people make a character assessment based on past behavior and judges the truth of what someone says accordingly. It's not a question of whether Kobe Bryant had a right to rape her. It's a question of whether she is lying or not.
Mine is merely a spoof on the absolute absurdity, desperation, and banality of today's TV and radio advertising. Trust me, I'm not trolling for anything (or anyone).
But, if it offends you, I can change it......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.