Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Whoa! Slow down, fella! Allegedly a stalker. He ain't been convicted by a jury of his peers just yet. Presumption of innocence and all.

i'm not trying to convict him in a court of law

you're being fucking stupid by comparing a court case with this guys online behavior...

so according to nigel.....this guy is guilty as hell and should be remanded to the state penn immediately....

bravo...nigel is now vigilante justice on the wild interwebs fronteir...

 

[Bonestorm]

wow...pointless post of the day

IOW...nothing anyone says fucking matters unless its what nigel says

LOL...if nothing mattes, why do you bother to post at all? if its not a court of law and it all means shit....can i personally threaten you? i mean seriously, your post abgove is the dumbest post all day....

i had no idea this wasn't a court of law...no shit sherlock

Nothing anyone says fucking matters? So you're a nihilist. I never would have guessed, but it explains a lot.

What I'm saying, my friend, is that while it is important for the justice system to treat individuals as presumed innocent and it is important for prosecutors and the media to drop their allegedlies all over the place to protect that presumption of innocence, here among us chickens it's quite alright to call OJ a fucking murderer and to call this rapist fella a racist. Those presumptions and allegedlies aren't necessary here.

 

[Bonestorm]

i'm not trying to convict him in a court of law

you're being fucking stupid by comparing a court case with this guys online behavior...

so according to nigel.....this guy is guilty as hell and should be remanded to the state penn immediately....

bravo...nigel is now vigilante justice on the wild interwebs fronteir...

Near as I can tell, SF wasn't talking about remanding this rapist feller to the penitentiary immediately. He just called the rapist a rapist. Strangely, you took offense.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Near as I can tell, SF wasn't talking about remanding this rapist feller to the penitentiary immediately. He just called the rapist a rapist. Strangely, you took offense.

? i took offense? give me a break...do you realize how stupiid you sound

if he is a rapist as claim...then you're saying rapist should not be remanded to the custody of the state...

wow...i mean i had no idea how pissed off you and SF, darla and onceler would get simply because i mentioned presumption of innocence

i had no idea you hated our laws that much...my bad

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Nothing anyone says fucking matters? So you're a nihilist. I never would have guessed, but it explains a lot.

What I'm saying, my friend, is that while it is important for the justice system to treat individuals as presumed innocent and it is important for prosecutors and the media to drop their allegedlies all over the place to protect that presumption of innocence, here among us chickens it's quite alright to call OJ a fucking murderer and to call this rapist fella a racist. Those presumptions and allegedlies aren't necessary here.

according to you....and using your logic....that don't mean shit

of course they matter here, you just don't like it when they go against your beliefs...see, the you operate is...its all good unless it doesn't conform to your world view...if YOUR opinions and those of the chickens matter, then its utter horseshit to say my opinions about presumption of innocence don't matter

IOW...only opinions that nigel agrees with matter, all else in here is for shit

 

[Zurt]

according to you....and using your logic....that don't mean shit

of course they matter here, you just don't like it when they go against your beliefs...see, the you operate is...its all good unless it doesn't conform to your world view...if YOUR opinions and those of the chickens matter, then its utter horseshit to say my opinions about presumption of innocence don't matter

IOW...only opinions that nigel agrees with matter, all else in here is for shit

You sure are. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[Bonestorm]

? i took offense? give me a break...do you realize how stupiid you sound

if he is a rapist as claim...then you're saying rapist should not be remanded to the custody of the state...

wow...i mean i had no idea how pissed off you and SF, darla and onceler would get simply because i mentioned presumption of innocence

i had no idea you hated our laws that much...my bad

No, I'm simply saying he's a rapist and that he should have been prosecuted. I don't hate our laws, I just get somewhat annoyed with jackassery like tsk-tsking people that call OJ a murderer or an admitted rapist a rapist.

Let's try this one, let's say an alleged rapist admits to having committed rape after the statute of limitations has run. Under your presumptions and allegedlies and legal jargon niceties, is this person a rapist or an alleged rapist?

 

[Zurt]

No, I'm simply saying he's a rapist and that he should have been prosecuted. I don't hate our laws, I just get somewhat annoyed with jackassery like tsk-tsking people that call OJ a murderer or an admitted rapist a rapist.

Let's try this one, let's say an alleged rapist admits to having committed rape after the statute of limitations has run. Under your presumptions and allegedlies and legal jargon niceties, is this person a rapist or an alleged rapist?

Here's Yurtle's take on justice:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – A paroled burglar was convicted Tuesday of murdering a woman and her two daughters in their suburban home during a night of terror that drew comparisons to "In Cold Blood" and bolstered efforts to retain the death penalty in Connecticut.

The mother was sexually assaulted and strangled. Her two girls died of smoke inhalation after the youngest was sexually assaulted, they were tied to their beds and doused in gasoline, and the house was set on fire.

Steven Hayes, 47, could be sentenced to death. His attorneys have admitted his involvement and will argue for a life sentence.

Prosecutors said Hayes and another ex-con broke into the family's house in Cheshire in 2007, beat the girls' father with a baseball bat and forced their mother, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, to withdraw money from a bank before she was sexually assaulted and killed. Eleven-year-old Michaela and 17-year-old Hayley were tied to their beds, with pillowcases over their heads, before they were killed by the gas-fueled fire, authorities said.

The crime drew comparisons to "In Cold Blood," Truman Capote's chilling book about the 1959 murders of a Kansas family, and prompted more Cheshire residents to get guns. It also led to tougher laws for repeat offenders and home invasions, and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell cited the case when she vetoed a bill that would have abolished the death penalty.

The girls' father and the lone survivor, Dr. William Petit, appeared to stifle tears as the verdict was read. His head down, he sucked in his bottom lip.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101006/..._home_invasion

fuck that, this guy needs to burn

 

[Bonestorm]

That position doesn't bother me all that much. I can understand it although I disagree with it.

What does blow my fucking mind, though, is that Yurt thinks it problematic for anonymous message board posters to call someone who has admitted to raping a person but who has not been convicted of rape a rapist but thinks its just A-OK for the state to murder the wrongfully convicted. That's fucked up.

 

[Damocles]

If he didn't think it was consent, he thought it was rape. And he'd take the case.

Or, he's just a wuss - whatever you want to go with.

Again, that isn't necessarily true. If he felt there was no way to get a conviction, even if he was "sure to the bone" that it was rape, he wouldn't "take the case"...

It is/was his job to make those kinds of judgments. When describing why he thought the case was weak he may point to evidence that the defense would bring up, some evidence that may appear as if there were consent. Now, the phone call you couldn't enter as evidence wouldn't be enough to convict obviously, nor could it even be brought up in court to refute that assertion, so if the other evidence wasn't enough to refute that claim, and there were some sort of evidence that the defense could bring to show even a lean towards "consent" it is just possible that it would be stupid to take on a case where the perp would clearly get off due to reasonable doubt...

Seriously. The guy said something on a phone call that they cannot bring as evidence and that means he "must" take the case? That isn't even good enough, and you know it isn't.

 

[NOVA]

are you saying that one misogynistic asshole equates to the entire republican party?

If this was a conservative victim or a liberal Democrat attacker it would not bother you.

A) You apparently don't know Darla too well
B) What a complete & utterly braindead thing to say

Yet...absolutely true...I've had "words" with Darla before....

LOL I know!

I bet there is no one on this board who argues and even fights with their "own side" as much as me, and it's almost always over women's rights.

Your post has nothing,....absolutely nothing to do with Republicans or Republican policy at all.....if you want to argue womens rights then do it and leave Republicans out of it....

 

[Damocles]

To be clear Soc, since the suspect is on tape telling her he knew what he had done was rape, your throwing some red herring on this thread about women lying about rape, is really bullshit.

IT's true the tape was not admissable, but it proves she wasn't lying.

My personal take on the conversation between Buck and the victim is that he is making a personal judgement against her.

You can differ on that, but you cannot state that the woman might have been lying about the rape. BEcause the guy said, yeah, I know I raped you.

Now that might dry up some panties around here Soc - but you are only entitled to your own opinion, not to make up facts.

You've only got a portion of the conversation between Buck and her...

Let's say we had this conversation:

Me: I wish I could prosecute, unfortunately our evidence isn't strong enough.
Her: But he said it was rape on the call!
Me: But we can't use that tape in court, because the police screwed up. We can't even bring it up! There is *insert evidence here* that the defense can use that can be seen as consent, and we don't have anything to refute that because the tape is inadmissible. I wouldn't want to put you through a trial and face all that just to have a jury say "I think that <evidence here> shows there was consent." Shoot, I'd even say "It even looks that way to me" if I hadn't heard the tape. And we'd lose, nor would I be able to take a case to court responsibly that I thought we can't win.
Her: This makes me sad.

Then it was reported that I said: "There is <some evidence> that ... can be seen as consent... 'I think that <evidence here> shows there was consent.' It even looks that way to me."

Does that mean I didn't believe her or didn't want to prosecute and that if I were a Democrat you shouldn't vote for me?

 

[Onceler]

Again, that isn't necessarily true. If he felt there was no way to get a conviction, even if he was "sure to the bone" that it was rape, he wouldn't "take the case"...

It is/was his job to make those kinds of judgments. When describing why he thought the case was weak he may point to evidence that the defense would bring up, some evidence that may appear as if there were consent. Now, the phone call you couldn't enter as evidence wouldn't be enough to convict obviously, nor could it even be brought up in court to refute that assertion, so if the other evidence wasn't enough to refute that claim, and there were some sort of evidence that the defense could bring to show even a lean towards "consent" it is just possible that it would be stupid to take on a case where the perp would clearly get off due to reasonable doubt...

Seriously. The guy said something on a phone call that they cannot bring as evidence and that means he "must" take the case? That isn't even good enough, and you know it isn't.

It's interesting that out of all the outrageous comments on the thread, that's the one you singled out, but I'll play.

I haven't researched this extensively, but going by the OP, it doesn't sound like the reasoning above was what he was using. And he does talk about it looking like consent, and focuses more on that part of the equation.

 

[Damocles]

It's interesting that out of all the outrageous comments on the thread, that's the one you singled out, but I'll play.

I haven't researched this extensively, but going by the OP, it doesn't sound like the reasoning above was what he was using. And he does talk about it looking like consent, and focuses more on that part of the equation.

See one post up to Darla. What is reported is not all of what occurred between Ken Buck and the woman.

 

[Cancel7]

You've only got a portion of the conversation between Buck and her...

Let's say we had this conversation:

Me: I wish I could prosecute, unfortunately our evidence isn't strong enough.
Her: But he said it was rape on the call!
Me: But we can't use that tape in court, because the police screwed up. We can't even bring it up! There is *insert evidence here* that the defense can use that can be seen as consent, and we don't have anything to refute that because the tape is inadmissible. I wouldn't want to put you through a trial and face all that just to have a jury say "I think that <evidence here> shows there was consent." and we lose, nor would I be able to take a case to court responsibly that I thought we can't win.
Her: This makes me sad.

Then it was reported that I said: "There is <some evidence> that ... can be seen as consent... 'I think that <evidence here> shows there was consent.'"

Does that mean I didn't believe her or didn't want to prosecute and that if I were a Democrat you shouldn't vote for me?

Damo stop making shit up okay? This really pisses me off. Is this another good buddy of yours by any chance??

Here is the actual transcript:


118) KB: It’s the totality of the circumstance… prior relationship with him… talk
to the experts who try rape cases and have not found a prosecutor yet who
would …
(130) Victim: His statement says, “When he finished, … (reading police report)…
tried to get the victim to wake the victim up so he could apologize.” How is that
not “physically helpless, meaning unconscious, asleep, or unable to act” (legal
code)
(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the
circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate
that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get
in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over tohave sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say
yes or no... ?

147) V: So you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide
consent, and you’re telling me that because of me calling him and because of
previous sexual relations and because I invited him up and told him how to get
in, that invited him up for sex...
(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people,
including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes,
but the appearance is of consent.

255) KB: Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very
public, publicly covered event. There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge
of, that I would assume (name of possible suspect redacted) knows about and
that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives for (unintelligible) and that is
part of what our calculation has been in this. (here is where he threatens her.)V: I’m interested to hear more about that, my motives, for what this has been.
KB: You have, you have had HIS baby, and you had an abortion.V: That’s false, that’s just false.

read in full: http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf

 

[Cancel7]

See one post up to Darla. What is reported is not all of what occurred between Ken Buck and the woman.

WTF are you talking about? I just posted the link to the Colorado newspaper that has the transcript. If you have another transcript, post it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why would you assume that?

Is it possible that the idea of rape might make someone a little more angry than words?

No, Darla has consistently (as she stated) taken men to task for sexist behavior. THAT is why I would ask her that.

Now... are you Darla? Or do you think you might allow her to answer for herself?

 

[Cancel7]

while his words could have been chosen better, I was under the impression he was trying to convey that he couldn't win on court because of the perception issue. There was to much ambiguity (given the tape recording being inadmissible) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, he could have stated it better, but I don't see the heinous act that you do.

Well, I have posted the transcript, and frankly I am not sure how anyone can conclude that Buck was not making a personal judgement. HE states outright; It appears to me.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Near as I can tell, SF wasn't talking about remanding this rapist feller to the penitentiary immediately. He just called the rapist a rapist. Strangely, you took offense.

which is precisely what I stated and precisely what he is. He is a rapist.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

? i took offense? give me a break...do you realize how stupiid you sound

if he is a rapist as claim...then you're saying rapist should not be remanded to the custody of the state...

wow...i mean i had no idea how pissed off you and SF, darla and onceler would get simply because i mentioned presumption of innocence

i had no idea you hated our laws that much...my bad

My god you are a fucking moron. When I man says "I raped you" the man is a RAPIST.... just because his admission was done in a manner that is inadmissible in court doesn't change the FACT that he admitted he is a rapist. No matter how many times you try to apologize for the rapist or try to spin it because you think the only way he can be a rapist is to be convicted of rape.

There are a LOT of rapists that do not get convicted because of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' level of proof we require to convict in a COURT. That does not change the fact that they are rapists you fucking moron.

Trying to pretend that we don't care about rule of law is absurd. HE FUCKING SAID HE RAPED HER. PERIOD.