Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!
Do you have any problem with the DPS saying drunk women "deserve" to get raped? Is that a legal defense that usually works? Can I kill a drunk guy and claim he should have expected it?
You're amazing. Truly. The DPS says "It isn't rape because he didn't orgasm" and "we want to 'educate' the rapist, not punish them", and all you can think about is scoring political points on a message board. You agree that drunk women deserved to get raped? Do they deserve to get murdered too? I served as a juror on a rape case with three neanderthals like you. Despite overwhelming evidence that the accused was guilty as hell, they kept to their story that "she deserved it" for wearing what she was wearing and "leading him on" (even though evidence showed the only place that happened was in his delusional fantasies). The original vote was 9-3. They wanted to declare a hung jury after 15 minutes of deliberation because they were never going to change their mind. It took us the better part of the day to convince them to look at the evidence in the case, not their preconceived notions. How they ever got seated on a rape trial is beyond me. If you ever get called for jury duty, do us all a favor and bring up the Duke lacrosse case so the prosecution knows to strike you from the jury. Most of us are smart enough to know that one high profile case is not the norm in the vast majority of rape and sexual assault cases filed.
No comment from me is necessary. But I'll give it a shot. There you sit, on the side of "truth, justice and the American way," brooking no deviation from left wing orthodoxy, telling us of your harrowing experience in a jury room. And, based on that, you've decided all the young men involved in these cases (they're all identical, right?) are guilty and wondering what the h*ll is wrong with me for suggesting we might want to take our time before we get the rope. You are so blinded by lefty cant and reflexive disregard for the rights of people you deem unworthy of them, that you're perfectly content to assume all of these "victims" need to be avenged without any inquiry at all into the specifics of the cases.
I ask again: where did you stand on the lynch mob in Durham? And mentioning that travesty of justice disqualifies
me from jury service? Presumably you modestly think you'd be a perfect juror for any of the "sexual assault" cases here. If there had been a trial in Durham, and I had served on the jury I would have expected the prosecution to prove those boys "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." A standard which you obviously find annoying (at least for defendants who don't measure up to your requirements). The lesson of the Duke case was that people like you were anxious to take the word of that whore and put three innocent boys in prison for the rest of their lives because the narrative suited the lefty view of the world--but not the evidence. A lesson which you appear not to have learned.
I'm sure you were the re-incarnation of Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men" while you all deliberated. But service on one rape jury hardly qualifies you as an expert on the "norm" in the "vast majority of rape cases." Or am I trying to "score political points on a message board" again?
I have no idea what happened in these cases. And neither do you. But it's enough to get your t*ts in an uproar that the always reliable, always balanced Huffington Post has declared these women "victims." Perhaps they are. Perhaps these cases reflect some sort of institutional lack of concern for the victims of sexual assault. In which case, "something
should be done." But unless and until the facts are verified, how 'bout you put down the pitchfork and give us all a break from your self-righteous blathering?
