(06-09-2016 01:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 12:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  C2, that is shifting some of the blame to the victim, or as we said "blaming the victim."

Yes, why shouldn't you shift the blame to some degree? As far as we know, that girl made a conscious choice to drink, whether she was peer pressured or not, to the point where she fell unconscious.

So, yes, to a certain extent, I am blaming the victim. I can't speak for Super or Bison.

I can name a lot of reasons not the blame the victim, but at least you acknowledge it. The problem is, the others were saying the same as you were, only claiming they were not blaming the victim. They were! And it was obvious to see. That was the argument.

There probably are times when you can say a victim helped contribute to their circumstances. I don't think having some drinks at a party qualifies as that, and I cannot think of too many cases where rape would be one of them, aside from deciding to break into a maximum security prison and dance nude and give lapdances to prisoners, but I can see the case being made in other areas. But the point here was acknowledging that when you say the victim made a mistake that contributed to her situation, that she was partially at fault.

(06-09-2016 01:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Not if the auto had the legal right of way and you were jaywalking or drunk or both. Now if you were in the Dominican Republic you would be in some trouble, but 5K should be enough to pay you way out of jail.

$5,000? You must have poor negotiating skills. Two Benjamins and a bottle of good liquor, and you should be out before you even get fingerprinted.

It is possible to "blame the victim". People could do that.

But highlighting the mistake, that the victim herself acknowledged, is not blaming the victim. That is obvious to see.

Just wanted to clear that up.

(06-09-2016 01:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I knew exactly that's what you'd say: I'm going to defer to what the law says.

What that actually means is: I'm going to defer to a completely arbitrary distinction, that is generally agreed upon by society.


If the alcohol-incapacitated human brain is incapable of giving consent, then I declare the alcohol-incapacitated human brain is also incapable of creating an intention. Prove me wrong.


PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, there is no requirement of "intention" that has to be established, in order for a crime to be committed. I'm not saying that. Just want to destroy your ridiculous assertion that evidence of an action being committed automatically proves that intention to commit that action existed. And I have now done that.

You have done nothing but convince yourself of something.

(06-09-2016 01:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Not if the auto had the legal right of way and you were jaywalking or drunk or both. Now if you were in the Dominican Republic you would be in some trouble, but 5K should be enough to pay you way out of jail.

$5,000? You must have poor negotiating skills. Two Benjamins and a bottle of good liquor, and you should be out before you even get fingerprinted.

But your lawyer, the prosecutor, the police and the judge will all be in on the scam. The most common is you are in the car maybe at a stop sign and a motoconcho hit you on purpose. then he fakes injury and calls the police.
They say it is all ok come to the station for a talk, then when do you leave the island? Then ok we have to take your passport. They you call a lawyer and they are all in on it.......you gotta pay the medical bills and we wont charge you with a crime. Doctor Bill is 5K, everybody is happy making money drinking El Presidente.

Terry,

Unless you're an expert in neurology/neuroscience and can scientifically refute it, I have casted (more than) reasonable doubt on the ill-posed concept that an action itself always automatically proves the preexistence of the intention to commit the act.

Therefore, you can't claim that the action of rape automatically proves preexistence of the intention to rape. Unless you want to be dishonest, of course. But then again, you're proud of the fact that you would sentence any and all people convicted of sexual assault to lengthy prison sentences. So I guess you're free to hold whatever ill-formed opinions you choose.

(06-09-2016 02:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  $5,000? You must have poor negotiating skills. Two Benjamins and a bottle of good liquor, and you should be out before you even get fingerprinted.

But your lawyer, the prosecutor, the police and the judge will all be in on the scam.

I should have put an emoticon. I was just joking.

(06-09-2016 01:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I can name a lot of reasons not the blame the victim, but at least you acknowledge it. The problem is, the others were saying the same as you were, only claiming they were not blaming the victim. They were! And it was obvious to see. That was the argument.

There probably are times when you can say a victim helped contribute to their circumstances. I don't think having some drinks at a party qualifies as that, and I cannot think of too many cases where rape would be one of them, aside from deciding to break into a maximum security prison and dance nude and give lapdances to prisoners, but I can see the case being made in other areas. But the point here was acknowledging that when you say the victim made a mistake that contributed to her situation, that she was partially at fault.

A lot of these college aged people, not just girls, get themselves into so much trouble. When you go to a party, let alone start doing stuff that can alter your mind like drugs and alcohol, you're raising the stakes for increased danger.

That's why you have a buddy system and watchful eyes in every direction. I ask again, where was this girl's friends? Or was she just a loner looking to fit in? I'm a loner but I'm also a large, muscular minority which for better or worse yields some level of respect from many would-be attackers. A 5'2" 100 lbs. girl is far more vulnerable and she adds to that vulnerability by doing drugs and alcohol around strangers and aquaintances.

That doesn't give an attacker the right to have free reign with her but she certainly opens herself up to more risks.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/convicted-sta...00113.html

It gets better...it seems ol' Brock is now going to get only 3 months instead of 6 months. If people see him or the judge on the streets, they may be in trouble.

They were saying from the beginning that he was likely to serve only 30 of the 60 days.

No need to keep him there the full 60, when jails are that over-crowded, for the expense that it takes to keep him in protective custody within the jail and when he isn't a likely threat to the public. I'm certain that if he hasn't learned his lesson after 30 days, another 30 days isn't going to do any good.


The profiteering media is milking this one for every last penny they can squeeze of out these people's misery.

There is this thing called house arrest. And considering he was charged with rape, even if not a violent one, I'd say the argument is there for him to be considered a threat to the public, even if he mostly seems like nice kid from all other accounts. So that doesn't fly with me.