Posted on 04/16/2006 9:05:32 PM PDT by Michael2001
Nope, I'm too far behind. I was in Cairo last week....still playing catchup on everything.
All I was saying is that the TIME stamp on the email doesn't, in and of itself, mean the player didn't do it. A previous post implied that because the email was sent at the TIME that the player was in class, that was proof that the player didn't send it. I was merely pointing out that email programs can be set up to send an email at any time, you don't physically have to be sitting in your dorm room to send the email.
I wasn't saying the player DID send the email, I was just pointing out that the time stamp isn't proof that he did NOT send it.
Additionally, with Blackberries and other mobile devices (including my relatively low-tech cell phone), you can send emails from mobile devices... and kids text/email FROM CLASS all the time these days. (It's amazing to me that Professors don't require kids to turn off their phones during class, but believe me, kids text from class all the time, because I have college friends who text me while they're in class.)
You're usually a reasonable person. I never expected to see the "she deserved it because she was wearing provocative clothing" argument from you.
Shame on you.
What a woman wears or doesn't wear does not entitle men to rape her. No means no. Naked or provocative doesn't mean yes. Teasing has been around forever, and men promote it. Teasing is one thing, rape is entirely different.
If someone wants sex, they should hire hookers, not strippers. And if a man can't control his penis in front of a naked woman, he's not much of a man.
I've also read that there was no lubricant or latex residue (inconsistent with condom use).
Since you don't have such a quote in your comment as being from me, then it is safe to assume that you knew I didn't say "she deserved it."
No American wearing "I hate Mohommed" buttons in Baghdad should be harmed, either.
But, if they are harmed one can certainly question their judgment in going to Baghdad to wear "I hate Mohammed" buttons.
A woman walking naked through Central Park at midnight shouldn't be raped, but if she does so and she is raped, the best I could muster for her would be: "It was really bright to walk naked through Central Park at midnight." And it wasn't.
A woman stripping in front of a bunch of drunk college males is a naked lady in the midst of a bunch of drunk college males.
I'd tell my own daughter that that isn't the brightest decision she could make.
Are you telling me it's a great decision?
You said "Sorry, but there's a huge difference between the "I was dancing naked in front of a stag party" rape and the type where someone is overpowered by in a brutal assault."
You are implying that every human male is capable of committing rape when presented with a naked or enticing female. Perhaps that's not what you mean, but that's the implication of that type of statement.
To me, rape is rape. There is no "huge" difference in rape. The only "huge" difference is in how the rape is committed. Drugging a woman and raping her, or beating her up and raping her, or threatening her with a knife and raping her, or threatening her with only words ("I'll kill your daughter if you move or make one sound") to rape her with no physical damage... it's all rape. You said there is a huge difference in the type of rape. You implied that you would have less sympathy, and you could understand how it would happen, and the victim would be partially to BLAME for the rape if she (fill in the blank: dressed provocatively, stripped at a stag party, walked naked through Central Park, etc.).
Rape is not the same thing as a human walking into a Lion's Den covered in fresh blood and expecting not to have a bite taken out of them. If it was, then that implies that every male who has ever been to a stag party with a stripper has the potential to rape the stripper -- and that is just not true.
Rape is done by bad men, not by normal men. If a normal man saw a woman walking naked through Central Park, I'm sure his first instinct would be arousal, and his second instinct would be to say "Are you OK Miss? Are you cold? Can I offer you my coat?" ... Not to rape her while saying "Scream and I'll kill you."
And no, I'm not telling you it's a great decision. It's a horrible decision. But not because of the potential for rape -- but because it's degrading to women. The worse decision, in my opinion, was to be on drugs/drunk while she was stripping. She is far more likely to do something she shouldn't do (have sex with strangers) when her judgement is impaired by drugs/alcohol than she would with a clear head. Stripping doesn't guarantee having sex with multiple partners (although statistically it is highly likely). But combine stripping, drugs, and lots of alcohol ("passed out drunk")... and you raise the odds that she did things none of us want our daughters to do.
You have made my point. Rape is done by bad men. And bad men constitute X percentage of the population. What percentage would you say that is? Therefore, providing those bad men with means and opportunity is, imho, a dumbass thing to do.
So, yes. A woman walked naked through Central Park is partially to blame. You heard it here. I'm not afraid to stand by the statement.
Stupid should be illegal.
You further make my point. Normal men become "bad men" when impaired by drugs and alcohol.
Therefore, stripping naked in front of a room full of drunk, horny males is a stupid thing to do.
Have you ever wondered why strip clubs employ bouncers?
Does stupid make oneself more vulnerable to certain events than not being stupid?
Sure, that's why we don't drive our cars at 110 mph on back country roads. It's surprising how many more of that kind of person gets called home early.
FWIW a naked woman walking through Central Park carrying a side arm or a shotgun, would likely not be raped even by the baddest of the bad guys. I also doubt if anyone (even the best of the good samaritans) would bother to approach her and offer her their coat. Just remember the old adage... never trust a naked woman with a gun.
But since sidearms are illegal in New York, that is a situation we will probably never witness.
Your 130 is the reason I ping you. Always worth a read.
LOL. :>)
I'm no expert, but that appears to be a specific search warrant for the premises - not the players themselves - in other words, not to take their DNA from them, but to search the premises for DNA.
But good digging.
My note was not from a formal document - so could be incorrect.
And I agree she Id'd them after their pictures were in the paper. (And most probably Lacrosse programs etc).
"I think the DA needs to arrest the entire lacrosse team and physically abuse each one until they all confess."
I've got a better idea! Lets arrest the DA and physically abuse HIM until HE confesses!
Ah, good point.
I need to get on the live thread and see if there are any new developments since 4PM.
In NY? It would not be unheard of.
I think they planted a bugging device in the room during the vist, personally.
We definitely agree that stupid should be illegal.
Um....she's a call-girl. She has sex with strangers for a living.
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.