Posted on 10/09/2003 2:08:36 PM PDT by per loin
Edited on 10/09/2003 7:29:36 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Well, I guess that explains why he and his friend showed up in the lobby that morning and played chess.
CLUELESS.
So, shall we just take the word of this girl, without looking into her background and her mental state? I mean, because she said it, is it the truth? You yourself said that she didn't go to the hospital for two days; the detective didn't "see" anything on her neck or face; unless you investigate her, how will you ever know what the truth is?
I don't think questioning of the accuser is a "smear" job until they start doing what they did today.
Well, today is the first day they've been able to question anybody about her; what questions are acceptable that wouldn't be considered "smearing" her?
""NO" DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN NO; TIME TO AGREE ON A PHRASE THAT DOES:
Right now there are only two people in the world who know if Kobe Bryant is guilty; will there always be only two people who know?
Because rapes happen in private, it is hard for the victimized woman to prove her accusation, and hard for the falsely accused man to prove his innocence. Unless a police officer observes the woman running from a room yelling "help!" there will be ambiguity. Physical evidence of intercourse may not prove anything, as sex might have been consensual. Bruises or other harm don't necessarily prove rape, unless the officer observes the woman running from the room. Injuries might be acquired in the hours after a sexual encounter; that's unlikely but cannot logically be ruled out. All it takes is one "reasonable" doubt in one juror's mind, and in he-said, she-said cases without third-party witnesses, there is often a reasonable doubt.
These factors surely mean some raped women don't press charges, because you don't have to be a Yale law professor to see that the accusation will be hard to prove. But the same factors also make it hard for a man to establish he is not a rapist. Maybe the woman really did give consent, or was even the aggressor. How can a man prove that? Because of what a woman must put herself through by alleging rape, it's widely believed among lawyers who practice sexual assault law that most who claim rape are telling the truth. But some claims of rape are false and land innocent men behind bars. It's all but impossible for an innocent man to prove there was consent.
So unless there is some spectacular piece of evidence that settles things one way or the other, if Bryant is convicted we'll never be sure he really did it--maybe a small-town jury assumed a big-city celebrity must be a bad guy. And if Bryant is acquitted, we'll never be sure he really didn't do it--maybe he got off on a technicality, or by having more expensive attorneys. Absent some spectacular piece of evidence that settles things one way or the other, even after the verdict is read, there will be uncertainty.
Beyond the chance of an ambiguous verdict is the ambiguous nature of some rape accusations. When force is used, or a woman taken somewhere against her will, it's open and shut. Cases in which force is only implied bedevil the rape issue; thousands of pages of law-review articles have been written on this point. And what about when the woman initiates the encounter of her own free will? That appears, at least, to be what happened in Colorado. A woman must be able to enter a man's hotel room, or dorm room, or car, or embrace, and later say, "I'm leaving now." Going into a man's hotel room late at night, or voluntarily initiating any social ritual that often leads to sex, is not the same as consenting to sex--even if the woman has sex on the mind, too. Women who enter possible-sex situations must always be free to decide to exit them. (Men must as well, but this comes up so rarely it's not a big issue; rape is almost always a women's concern.)
In contemporary society, the problem may turn on the language women use if they decide they want to leave. "No" doesn't cut it, unless it's a top-of-the-lungs "NO!" However often theorists assert that the single word "no" is all that's required--"what part of 'no' don't you understand," etc.--the reality of human interaction is that "no" does not always mean no. Maybe half the sex in world history has followed an initial "no," or more than one "no." (Whether such sex is regretted later, or simply not much fun, is irrelevant to the rape debate.) What ends up as consensual sex, however unsatisfying, often begins with the woman saying "no."
Because men know this--because in the real world "no" does not always mean no--speaking the word "no" is not the ideal way to communicate to a man that what is happening has changed from persuasion, or pressure, to compulsion. Men not only want sex, the male mindset holds that overcoming the woman's "no" is part of manliness. Few men will rape if that's what they think they are doing. Many try to push past "no" and tell themselves that what they are doing is manly persuasion of the naturally hesitant female. "Had we but world enough, and time/this coyness, lady, were no crime:" Andrew Marvel, circa 1650.
There has to be a better way than the word "no" to communicate to the man that he has crossed the line, and that better way must be widely agreed upon. Here's my proposal: If the line is crossed, women should say, "This is rape!"
The statement is clear, unambiguous, and can't possibly mean "not now, but maybe after more wine," which is what men often think the first "no" means. Saying, "This is rape!" won't stop the hardened criminal rapist, who already has decided to commit a crime. This phrase should work on the majority of men who are not criminals. Just hearing the word "rape" in this context would give chills to the majority of men who are not criminals. If this phrase were promoted and widely understood to mean that the woman was changing the situation from age-old male-female play into a legal event, there could be no confusing it with the "no" that might become a "yes."
Do you think she would risk being disbarred for Kobe Bryant?
I'm not sure that will work but most of the legal gabbers were thrown offstride that the defense was allowing this out at all.
BTW, all you chicks with tattoos on your backside - how good do you feel about them now?
Wonder if his attorney disputed the positioning which is key here. The "consensual sex" after kissing on the couch is either performed on the couch or a bed. Over a chair may prove she was attempting to leave and wasn't permitted.
Saying no while crying hysterically is probably a giveaway to one of the parties that the sex is not consensual. There is evidence that Kobie Bryant confided to a friend that she was crying hysterically.
Kobie's statement may be the straw that breaks this camels back. We'll see.
How about he just tell the truth about what happened that night. What are his reasons for believing she consented?
Easy there Tex. That's an artform I enjoy.
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.