Behave!

[Crystaledwards]

My only questions in the Cosby case pertain to how someone can defend himself against charges that he did something up to 45 years ago. There's really no evidence but there is the assumption that he did something without anything beyond the accusations to base it upon. The court of public opinion adjudicated it fairly early on but I'm on record saying that I have no idea what happened and if most of us are honest, we'll agree.

With that said, I'm amazed that anyone can mitigate a criminal act. Do you know how many college sexual assaults go unreported because a 19 year old woman was stupid enough to get drunk in a bar or a frat and some animal took the opportunity to rape her? Read: She was stupid for getting drunk, not because she should have known the consequences. No one EVER contributes to being raped. That's why it's considered 'rape'.

The problem with the recent police deaths is not that all cops are bad, but that they rally around the ones who are negligent and offer mitigating reasons as to why they are half-assed and unable to do their job without stepping over the line from time to time. Trayvon Martin's hood mitigated his death in the eyes of many. Michael Brown's strong-arm robbery of a box of cigarettes mitigated his. It goes on and on and both the prosecution and defense are shameless for doing it when it serves their

There is no excuse for criminal activity. Period. I don't care if your child is hungry and you steal a loaf of bread. At some point, 'justifiable' theft will drive the vendor out of business and that's wrong. There are always options and crooks are simply too lazy to consider them. So they come up with excuses for why they did it instead of admitting they did the wrong thing when they're caught.

It's the sweeping generalizations that I find terribly disconcerting.

Not every Italian man in a smart suit is Mafia. Not every woman in cut off shorts and a midriff top is a hooker. Not every scruffy white man in a pick up truck is a redneck. Not every Black or Latino kid in a hoodie is a criminal. It's clothing for goodness sake. Trayvon Martin was a teenager walking back home, from the store, with candy and a drink, talking to his girl on his cell phone, with his hood on because it was raining. What kind of asinine, warped logic can make his hoodie partly responsible for his murder? People of All ages, genders, and races wear them. New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick wears hoodies often. I doubt anyone is going to follow, confront, and shoot Mr. Belichick because he has a hoodie on?

CE

[soulster]

I also like women who dress their age.

Who's standard of age? I think people should be able to dress however the hell they want to as long as they don't break any local laws.

[soulster]

If I was to agree with you that it's contributorily negligent to walk into a bar with a mini dress and no panties [[for an extreme example), how is it that of 50 men in the bar, one guy decides to follow her out to her car to rape her? Shouldn't all 50 use that excuse to get a lighter sentence? Wasn't she 'available' to everybody? For that matter, what if she was wearing underwear but the mini dress was sufficient to arouse some perv to action? Or tight jeans? Or her pretty toes? Or makeup? Trust me, depraved men don't need an excuse.

I guess you believe that a gay couple who walks into a country bar on the rough side of town contributes to being beat down as well. Or those Black kids who were chased through Bensonhurst 30 years ago should have known that teenage mafia wannabes didn't appreciate their kind calling on the girls in the neighborhood. Or that Eric Garner should have known that selling loosies will get you killed in New York City.

Excellent post, man! Any of you ever go to a swinger-type club? Just because a woman can walk around 100% buck naked doesn't mean you can touch her.

[thomas96]

Crime victims are often scrutinized as to who they were with, what they were wearing, what music they were blaring, where they were walking or what they might have done to cause the violence committed against them. One would think that by this day and age “victim blaming” would be non-existent, but it isn't. Blaming the victim releases the assailant who commits the violence from the responsibility for what he or she has done. The most obvious outward and visible expression of victim blaming appear in sexual assault cases.

It's not "victim blaming." It's determining the truth. In the courts both the plaintiff and defendant are attacked and grilled, in order to find out the truth about every single aspect of the situation. With sexual assault cases it's almost always a "he-said, she said" situation and the victim could be either the male or female. These days it is ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THE FEMALE IS THE VICTIM. You don't find it possible that in, say, Bill Cosby's situation, these women consented to the sex in an attempt to get Cosby to advance their careers and after not getting anywhere they are coming out lying saying they were raped? It's innocent until proven guilty. Ever hear of a fella named Brian Banks? If not, look him up.

[ralpht]

Now this is what I call a good conversation.

[soulster]

It's not "victim blaming." It's determining the truth. In the courts both the plaintiff and defendant are attacked and grilled, in order to find out the truth about every single aspect of the situation.

Even when the truth is clearly there, the jury or judge may rule against it. Eric Garner, anyone?

[Crystaledwards]

It's not "victim blaming." It's determining the truth. In the courts both the plaintiff and defendant are attacked and grilled, in order to find out the truth about every single aspect of the situation. With sexual assault cases it's almost always a "he-said, she said" situation and the victim could be either the male or female. These days it is ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THE FEMALE IS THE VICTIM. You don't find it possible that in, say, Bill Cosby's situation, these women consented to the sex in an attempt to get Cosby to advance their careers and after not getting anywhere they are coming out lying saying they were raped? It's innocent until proven guilty. Ever hear of a fella named Brian Banks? If not, look him up.

In the case of the Cosby women I firmly believe that most women are telling the truth.

Yes I have am somewhat familiar with the Brian Banks case but when it comes to rape or just physical assault 2% - 4% of the time the accusation is false. Unfortunately Mr. Banks fell into that 2% - 4%. The DA should have done a more thorough investigation before pressing any charges and his accuser should have been incarcerated for the exact same time that Brian Banks spent in jail.

Can you possibly take into account how shocked, ashamed and afraid the rape victim is afterwards? Look at the abuse Cosby's accusers are getting now. Many victims try desperately to put it behind them, so that they don't feel defined by it, but it comes back, and back, and years later is almost unbearable. By the time you are ready to deal with it, it's usually too late.

In most cases when the plaintiff is rich and famous the defendant is grilled by million dollar, charismatic attorneys who then throw highly paid experts on the stand to disqualify credible evidence and taint the jury. Surely you remember the "If the glove don't fit you must "acquit" line?

CE

[Jerry Oz]

Crystaledwards, from my seat it looks like Cosby is coming out on the losing end of the public abuse in this situation. I don't think it's necessarily abuse to ask questions for either side. In my personal opinion, I think that some of them are probably telling the truth but my instincts tell me that many [[if not most) are not. I'm ill at ease when it comes to hearsay, especially when it recalls crimes alleged to have occurred decades ago because we'll never know the truth.

With that being said, this is a serious issue. Even with the embarrassment of learning that the military protects rapists, the number of reported assaults increased last year. To make matters worse, the number of women who reported retaliation after pressing charged jumped as well. The excuse is that women shouldn't be in a man's domain [[the military) and that's why women in combat is an issue. It's ridiculous but the culture of the military blames them for being women. To my knowledge, none of these women was dressed inappropriately when the assaults occurred, so that takes that issue off of the table.

Let's not talk about the issue of sexual assault on college campuses.

Men tend to understate this crime and they're less likely to want to 'ruin a man's career' when sexual assault charges are raised. In the few cases when they're found responsible, they're allowed to withdraw from school without public demerit or to leave the military with honorable discharge. The fact that women who press charges become cautionary tales that warn others makes this a shame on society, not on the victims.

[144man]

That's total nonsense! Is this 1925 again?

It's not nonsense. I don't like it, but it's what the law seems to be in the UK at the moment.

[144man]

No. Hands off means hands off whether in a bikini or a burka!

CE

I'm talking about the legal position, not what I personally believe.

[Jerry Oz]

Legally, you can't force your wife to have sex with you, even if she's walking around bare-assed naked. What makes anyone think that there's compelling reason why this wouldn't hold true for a stranger in a public setting?

Much is made of the fact that "no means no". Perhaps more needs to be said about "not saying 'yes' means 'hell no'".

[144man]

To reduce this to its most absurd, it will end up that up that a written certificate of consent will have to be obtained by each party before making love, and keeping the document for 30 or 40 years.

[Jerry Oz]

That or men will learn to be more careful with whom they share bodily fluids. It's hard to prove date rape in general, but the best way to avoid being falsely accused is to share them with partners not likely do it.

By the way, many US colleges are requiring participants to actually ask and receive clearly stated consent. Otherwise, the act is not considered to be consensual and the guy [[or gal) can be expelled.

[soulster]

It's not nonsense. I don't like it, but it's what the law seems to be in the UK at the moment.

But, you didn't say that.

[soulster]

To reduce this to its most absurd, it will end up that up that a written certificate of consent will have to be obtained by each party before making love, and keeping the document for 30 or 40 years.

This is actually the law in California now, at least for college students. A woman must explicitly give her consent for any sexual contact beforehand. Just saying "no" won't cut it anymore. You have to say it. Why? Non-verbal communication can be misconstrued. How many times have I heard some dude brag about boning some chick. When I ask if that's what they really wanted, the guys usually say "She didn't say "no.".

[144man]

But, you didn't say that.

I made quite clear my abhorrence of rape in the deleted thread. The use of a term like "contributory negligence" implies that it is a purely legal argument.