Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It

[Damocles]

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

Making it bigger doesn't change the reality of what I posted. Anybody can appear the ogre when taken out of context.

Here is what starts this "transcript"

Quote from the page posted by you here: http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf

95) Ken Buck: This is a case that is troubling to me. Troubling to Steve (ADA), the nature of a crime is on a such a magnitude…. We have looked at this from a lot of different angles. We have to fulfill our ethical obligation that this case would have an expectation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury. That is in conflict with the law. “We may think we know who killed the Ramsey girl, but if we can’t prove it, we can’t bring a case forward.” … And that’s where we’re coming from with this decision.

Then later Ken Buck says:
"KB: There is contradictory evidence over consent. The act of inviting him, appear to be consensual acts, then there are statements that appear to be indicate that there wasn’t consent. That conflict is the conflict that doesn’t give us the proof beyond reasonable doubt."

Let me see what I said...

I said, he likely thought there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that they would lose if this was brought. He warned her of that. Basically what Ken said in that conversation, when taken wholly in context was exactly what I said. There isn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the tape of his conversation was out. The evidence they had wasn't enough to convict. Some of his statements were taken out of this context, and dropped like a bomb onto the board (and into a Salon article).

Believe me, if he really thought that was truly "consent" and wasn't saying "beyond reasonable doubt" I wouldn't think of voting for him either.

 

[Cancel7]

Side note Darla...

I assume you have completely condemned Brown in CA as well for not doing anything when his aide called Whitman a whore? told the women of CA they should rise against Brown and refuse to vote for him?

First, as Onceler points out, rape is measurably more severe than name-calling. And I’m sure you wouldn’t argue differently.

As for Brown’s staff member referring to Whitman as a whore, I read the whole thing, and this is what I think. He didn’t just come out of nowhere and say “oh that f’ing Whitman, what a whore”. He is saying they should go after her for being a whore because of pandering to a faction who apparently gave her money. I have no way of knowing that he doesn’t routinely refer to men in the same circumstances as whores. This is a fine distinction, but it’s an important one to me. I use the word whore in a non-gendered way. I call male politicians whores all of the time. I shouldn’t though.

Why shouldn’t I? Because it’s a gendered insult. We are all guilty of it. And no one more so than most of the males on this board who routinely refer to each other as ‘pussies”. A highly-gendered insult. I have made great strides in dropping the word bitch from my vocabulary, and referring to both men and women as “assholes”, a completely non-gendered insult. I slip up sometimes. But who else here is trying? Who else gives a shit?

So as long as you are engaging in gendered insults, you’re just as guilty as this guy who works for Brown. HE was obviously not using it in the manner of, oh she’s such a whore she screws this one and that one etc.

And no, I don’t think it’s any big deal. It’d be better if everyone tried to gender-neutralize their language, and since most people who accept money in exchange for sex (well, there’s not much of a call for it the other way around, lol), are women, then whore will remain a gendered-insult and one we should all avoid. But on the other hand, since our politicians are routinely up for sale to the highest bidder, it’s kind of hard to come up with a more succinct word for them isn’t it?

If there is an R woman who has been on the receiving end of sexism this election, sadly it’s been O’Donnell. I don’t know what she was thinking running that jackass ad “I’m not a witch”, but I cringed when I saw it, and I cringe every time a liberal-leaning pundit makes jokes about it. She is obviously a deeply stupid woman, but the witch thing is asinine, and some male liberals or dems sound sexist when going after her for it.

 

[Cancel7]

Making it bigger doesn't change the reality of what I posted. Anybody can appear the ogre when taken out of context.

Here is what starts this "transcript"

Quote from the page posted by you here: http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf

95) Ken Buck: This is a case that is troubling to me. Troubling to Steve (ADA), the nature of a crime is on a such a magnitude…. We have looked at this from a lot of different angles. We have to fulfill our ethical obligation that this case would have an expectation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury. That is in conflict with the law. “We may think we know who killed the Ramsey girl, but if we can’t prove it, we can’t bring a case forward.” … And that’s where we’re coming from with this decision.

Then later Ken Buck says:
"KB: There is contradictory evidence over consent. The act of inviting him, appear to be consensual acts, then there are statements that appear to be indicate that there wasn’t consent. That conflict is the conflict that doesn’t give us the proof beyond reasonable doubt."

Let me see what I said...

I said, he likely thought there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that they would lose if this was brought. He warned her of that. Basically what Ken said in that conversation, when taken wholly in context was exactly what I said. There isn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the tape of his conversation was out. The evidence they had wasn't enough to convict.

You're full of shit Damo - nothing you pull out effects or changes what he stated in what I posted.

He clearly states that HE views it as "appearing" to be consent because she invited him into his apartment.

HE later threatens her, in a barely veiled manner, about the abortion the admitted rapist claims she had. She denies the abortion - here's the problem.

She was raped. NOONE should be asking her about an abortion. And considering his radical anti-choice views, there's no doubt in my mind that this affected his view of her.

HIS own views of her are clearly stated throughout the interview. And you know it.

But I bet he's a big buddy of yours, and nice try.

 

[Damocles]

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.

And I just posted the quotes of Ken's that were wrapped around the other quote that say exactly what I said they did. The reality is the quotes in the Salon article are taken out of that context. The reality was he started off by explaining "We may know who did it, but that doesn't mean we can bring it to trial"... The rest of his statements were explanations of why he thought there were problems...

 

[Damocles]

You're full of shit Damo - nothing you pull out effects or changes what he stated in what I posted.

He clearly states that HE views it as "appearing" to be consent because she invited him into his apartment.

HE later threatens her, in a barely veiled manner, about the abortion the admitted rapist claims she had. She denies the abortion - here's the problem.

She was raped. NOONE should be asking her about an abortion. And considering his radical anti-choice views, there's no doubt in my mind that this affected his view of her.

HIS own views of her are clearly stated throughout the interview. And you know it.

But I bet he's a big buddy of yours, and nice try.

I didn't "pull them out' I put them back. They are the opening and closing statements of the conversation. Within that context it becomes clear that all the later quotes were exactly as I stated, explanations of how the case would appear. He speaks of things that the Defense would bring up and why he thinks that they would be able to create "reasonable doubt"...

 

[Cancel7]

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.

Well said. It does seem rather simple, but...apparently not to everyone.

 

[Cancel7]

I didn't "pull them out' I put them back. They are the opening and closing statements of the conversation. Within that context it becomes clear that all the later quotes were exactly as I stated, explanations of how the case would appear. He speaks of things that the Defense would bring up and why he thinks that they would be able to create "reasonable doubt"...

YOu can pull a rabbit out of your ass and stick in at the beginning and at the end, and it doesn't change the meaning of this and of all statements like this throughout the conversation:

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 to
have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say
yes or no... ?

 

[Bonestorm]

And I just posted the quotes of Ken's that were wrapped around the other quote that say exactly what I said they did. The reality is the quotes in the Salon article are taken out of that context. The reality was he started off by explaining "We may know who did it, but that doesn't mean we can bring it to trial"... The rest of his statements were explanations of why he thought there were problems...

First, if conflicting evidence regarding the issue of consent meant that rapists would not be prosecuted it is hard to think of any circumstances wherein a date rapist would ever be brought to trial. Think about that for a while.

Second, even assuming the prosecutor were sincere in saying "we may know who did it but that doesn't mean we can bring it to trial," that's just horseshit. You can certainly bring it to trial. You may not win at trial, but there are worse things in the world than a blemish on your record. Like letting a known rapist walk without letting a jury decide the matter.

 

[Cancel7]

"It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to
have sex with him. "

You have to be highly invested in a man to twist that into something that someone said that did not reflect their personal view.

SInce he states outright that it's his personal view and all.

 

[Damocles]

Well said. It does seem rather simple, but...apparently not to everyone.

It is clear to me that the guy is a rapist. Even KB said that they came at it from the stance of (paraphrasing) "We may know who did it, but we couldn't convict so we can't bring it to trial."

I think he made it clear that he agrees. However, what can and should be brought to trial often conflicts with what somebody knows.

 

[Cancel7]

And I just posted the quotes of Ken's that were wrapped around the other quote that say exactly what I said they did. The reality is the quotes in the Salon article are taken out of that context. The reality was he started off by explaining "We may know who did it, but that doesn't mean we can bring it to trial"... The rest of his statements were explanations of why he thought there were problems...

Stop lying Damo. I'm sure "Ken" appreciates it, but it doesn't make you look good:

"It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to
have sex with him. "

 

[Cancel7]

It is clear to me that the guy is a rapist. Even KB said that they came at it from the stance of (paraphrasing) "We may know who did it, but we couldn't convict so we can't bring it to trial."

I think he made it clear that he agrees. However, what can and should be brought to trial often conflicts with what somebody knows.

He made it clear he disagrees and he makes it clear he believes she consented when she invited him up:

Buck "It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to
have sex with him. "

Victim: 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...

Buck: 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.

Stop lying for Ken Damo.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

He made it clear he disagrees and he makes it clear he believes she consented when she invited him up:

Buck "It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to
have sex with him. "

Victim: 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...

Buck: 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.

Stop lying for Ken Damo.

typical darla...leave off the rest of his comments

he NEVER said she consented...he said there was the appearance and that it would make trial very hard and it would make it difficult to prove

stop lying just because you hate men

 

[Damocles]

Stop lying Damo. I'm sure "Ken" appreciates it, but it doesn't make you look good:

"It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to
have sex with him. "

Passive participles.. "would appear". When taken in the context that was taken away from the full transcript that I linked to (and you did as well), it is clear he is speaking of why he thinks Juries would think this way. Especially when you read later statements:

KB: This office doesn’t believe in (blaming the victim?) for the conduct of the case but, we do have to take into account what a weld county jury sees in the relationship. You had consumed a lot of alcohol. You had a prior relationship. According to him, you were naked from the top up when he came into the bedroom. So, there are enough indicators or (indications?) that in my opinion make this impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, the victim has the right to file with a Judge to try to force prosecution, that's what this conversation was about. He simply informed her why he thought that reasonable doubt would not be met.

 

[Damocles]

He made it clear he disagrees and he makes it clear he believes she consented when she invited him up:

Buck "It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to
have sex with him. "

Victim: 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...

Buck: 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.

Stop lying for Ken Damo.

I disagree. I think that no matter what he said other than "Yes, ma'am we'll do whatever you say," wouldn't be enough for you. The stuff I posted were from the same transcript you provided then conveniently left off. They are the surrounding statements that put it in actual context. The conversation was about whether he thought it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he believed it couldn't be, he spoke of "would appear" and other things, but it is clear (and he spoke about it at the opening) that this was a difficult decision because he believed her, but believed he couldn't convict.

 

[Cancel7]

Passive participles.. "would appear". When taken in the context that was taken away from the full transcript that I linked to (and you did as well), it is clear he is speaking of why he thinks Juries would think this way. Especially when you read later statements:

KB: This office doesn’t believe in (blaming the victim?) for the conduct of the case but, we do have to take into account what a weld county jury sees in the relationship. You had consumed a lot of alcohol. You had a prior relationship. According to him, you were naked from the top up when he came into the bedroom. So, there are enough indicators or (indications?) that in my opinion make this impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, the victim has the right to file with a Judge to try to force prosecution, that's what this conversation was about. He simply informed her why he thought that reasonable doubt would not be met.

Damo, if you read the conversation in its entirety, he makes all of his "in my view and in the view of others" statements early on. THe victim and Man #2 hit back hard. Man #2 pointing out to Buck that since the male stated that he had "Tried to wake her up" after the rape, how could there even be a possibility of consent?

Ok, let me stop here and break a newsflash: IF you have to wake a woman up after sex because she was unconscious during it, you have not had sex - you have committed a rape!

Anyway, the victim and man #2 come back hard, and it becomes obvious that she is repeating to him,, let me get this straight, what you're telling me is? ANd Buck, who just because he's a misognyist doesn't mean he is an idiot, starts to backtrack. And that's when he starts covering himself. But it's clear that he does not do so, or even bother to hide that he is stating that he views screwing an unconscious woman is consensual sex if she invites you to her home, until after he gets serious and informed pushback from the other two.

That's a fair reading of that conversation. I find you to be hyper partisan, and sadly that even extends to this.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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.

calm down

lets really look at this...

1. i haven't heard the recording, but it sounds bad. also he apparently tried to apoligize earlier, before the recording. if this is all true, why doesn't he just admit it to the police? he is so sorry, but yet he never admits this to the police.

2. if he said it to her, it is likely he said it to someone else as well. they have never come forward

3. you still have not addressed why or if her attorney brought a motion to compel prosecution, nothing happened as a result of that. this is where i started to wonder about the case. to be quite honest, i had convicted him my mind until i read this....the attorney in the transcripts threatens to bring a motion to compel prosecution.....which in my opinion is a GREAT idea...yet...this was four years ago and nothing happened as a result. doesn't that raise a yellow flag for you? i mean, getting that motion should be easy even without the statement....arrest the guy and its likely he would sing like a canary given his earlier repeated statements....something doesn't pass my smell test on this one

that is what made me think there is some reasonable doubt. and again, i don't know why i have to say this so many times for you guys, it doesn't look pretty, yet no one wants to actually discuss the issues, its much easier to assume and call people women haters...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well said. It does seem rather simple, but...apparently not to everyone.

why don't you try and debating me instead of just insulting me

is it becuase its much easier for others to debate for you?

 

[Cancel7]

I disagree. I think that no matter what he said other than "Yes, ma'am we'll do whatever you say," wouldn't be enough for you. The stuff I posted were from the same transcript you provided then conveniently left off. They are the surrounding statements that put it in actual context. The conversation was about whether he thought it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he believed it couldn't be, he spoke of "would appear" and other things, but it is clear (and he spoke about it at the opening) that this was a difficult decision because he believed her, but believed he couldn't convict.

I think that anything other than Buck being caught on youtube stating "that bitch was asking for it after all she had an abortion and invited him up. Everybody knows if a bitch says yes once, you own that for the rest of your life and can have it whenever you want" would keep you twisting away and ignoring his stating "in my view" "it appeared to me".

And I think if such a video did appear, your first words would be "oh shit, how is KEn going to get out of this???"

 

[Damocles]

Damo, if you read the conversation in its entirety, he makes all of his "in my view and in the view of others" statements early on. THe victim and Man #2 hit back hard. Man #2 pointing out to Buck that since the male stated that he had "Tried to wake her up" after the rape, how could there even be a possibility of consent?

Ok, let me stop here and break a newsflash: IF you have to wake a woman up after sex because she was unconscious during it, you have not had sex - you have committed a rape!

Anyway, the victim and man #2 come back hard, and it becomes obvious that she is repeating to him,, let me get this straight, what you're telling me is? ANd Buck, who just because he's a misognyist doesn't mean he is an idiot, starts to backtrack. And that's when he starts covering himself. But it's clear that he does not do so, or even bother to hide that he is stating that he views screwing an unconscious woman is consensual sex if she invites you to her home, until after he gets serious and informed pushback from the other two.

That's a fair reading of that conversation. I find you to be hyper partisan, and sadly that even extends to this.

I've now read it three times. Each time I see another instance that puts it in the context that I state I see. I think he didn't state some of the things as well as he could have, but everybody has those kinds of moments.

However I believe what I see is clear in the full transcript and that the statements that I quoted provide a whole different view, hence their total absence in Salon's article.