Does the water underneath come with it? Because if not, I'm going to have to see Chuck about that oceanfront property he's offering me in Arizona. J.
I found this story somewhat relevant: I've quoted the full story to show how deeply they buried the most interesting bit.
Right. So, I'm just being obtuse. Then you tell me what was Volpone's point in posting that article in this thread?
Volpone is a contemptible douchetard, but in this case there is no reason to suspect any motive beyond posting a relevant article to continue this discussion. Neither he nor the article he posted so much as implied that "no woman in the history of the world has ever been raped." The strongest evidence I'm seeing is that you went all estrogen-hysterical and jumped head first into the crazy end of the pool.
I find it interesting that the prosecutors won't say what exactly these guys are charged with. I would think that that would be a matter of public record, and if it was simply that they were charged with rape, they have no reason to hold off on saying that. Not quite sure of what to make of that, though.
Not even close. I am so very much against false accusations of rape that most women I discuss the subject with IRL consider me 'conservative'. So, stop acting like 'those' women by trying to defend the indefensible. Volpone's intentions were exactly as I described and you know it.
I guess it depends on how "relevant" one would find the article. Volpone says he thought it's "somewhat relevant." Jenee probably thinks it's not at all relevant. There are a fair amount of differences that could lead to that conclusion. The case he quoted was decided under Philipines law, which apparently requires a show of force, threat or intimidation. In most states, rape includes cases in which the person is too drunk to give meaningful consent. The case he quoted involved a recanting victim. There's no indication (at least yet) that this woman had the capacity to consent or is likely to change her story. The case he quoted had lots of international political implications. This one, not really, although I'm sure the police department is under extra political pressure. The case he quoted had the woman and the defendant meeting in the social setting of a bar. This NY case involved the police officers meeting her in their capacity as officers and getting her back to her apartment. If you are of a mind to think that the two cases are irrelevant, and you happen to think of Volpone as a contemptible douchetard, I could see you reading a motive to his posting the story of likening the two cases. Then again, I could see how it's somewhat relevant in so far as they both are cases involving a rape by a guy in uniform.
You are a nut case. In this thread, an argument started over whether it is right to automatically condemn someone of rape before the facts are fully known and a verdict is handed down. Volpone posted a story to demonstrate how these things can turn out. He could have just as easily posted the Kobe Bryant story or the Duke lacrosse team story as examples to why it's not always good to jump to conclusions. So honestly, what the fuck is your problem?
I don't have a hard time believing these charges though. NYPD officers as a whole, suck ass. See Elwood's post on the subject. Part of that is attributable to the screening process. Since the Knapp Commission, the NYPD's overriding focus has been on financial corruption, looking for, and weeding out those who would likely take money to the exclusion of all else. So you get the bully with a badge, the slob, the pussyhound, or the out and out psychopath. They won't take a free cup of coffee, but they'll do a whole host of other shit.
To nitpick, a verdict was handed out in the case Volpone posted and the guy was found guilty, apparently wrongly. Should we then wait until appeals have been exhausted before expressing the opinion that someone's guilty? Also, I'm not directing this at you or anyone in particular, but not too many people here seem to concerned about the presumption of innocence in various other contexts, whether it's murder or child molestation, political corruption (unless it's one of "our guys" who's accused, maybe) or what have you. At least, I don't remember seeing it in those other contexts generally. If I'm wrong, people should feel free to correct me. If I'm right, why is that? I would say that those are very different from the facts alleged in this case. In the Kobe Bryant case, there were always two possibilities: he raped her or he had consensual sex with her and she made a false allegation. It came down to a he-said, she-said, and who do you believe more. In the Duke case, it was pretty clear from the onset that the prosecution wouldn't be able to meet its burden, that "facts" as alleged didn't add up, and that it kept going only because of a vindictive and out-of-control prosecutor. This case is pretty new and of course new facts could come out that contradict things that we think we know. That said, it's very different from the Kobe Bryant, Duke cases or even the one Volpone cited. There's not really the possibility of he-said she said here since the cops knew she was falling down drunk when they first met her. It's not a case where the cops can reasonably say "We were flirting in a social setting and then she invited us to have sex with her." There's also no current basis to argue that the prosecutors in this case are being unethical or that the facts as described aren't adding up.
I thought we should take 'em out back and put a bullet in their heads the minute they're convicted. In fact, I'm pretty sure Volpone himself has expressed that exact sentiment on more than one occasion. Good thing they didn't do that to the guy in his article.
