Gung-ho cops side with the rapist, rape victim commits suicide

[Wilfire]

Nah, you just have to learn how to not be a fucking crybaby when people use words the way they're intended. "Boohoo, someone said mean words! So I'll just focus on crying about that instead of the actual point, because I have fuck-all to actually counter it and believe, deep down in my pathetically tiny heart, that this tactic will work!"

13 profanities in 2 posts. Look at me, mommy! I'm a big boy now cuz I use big boy words!

[Deleted]

13 profanities in 2 posts. Look at me, mommy! I'm a big boy now cuz I use big boy words!

Okay, you have proven you can count, now all that there is to do for you is to actually counter his arguments.

[Wilfire]

Okay, you have proven you can count, now all that there is to do for you is to actually counter his arguments.

Debates are productive only when the parties are willing to change their views or there is a need to look at an issue from an external point of view. Since The Jabberwock won't accept any position other than "rape is a-okay!" and his point of view won't budge, countering his arguments is a waste of time.

[ravenswood]

Debates are productive only when the parties are willing to change their views or there is a need to look at an issue from an external point of view. Since The Jabberwock won't accept any position other than "rape is a-okay!" and his point of view won't budge, countering his arguments is a waste of time.

you have not even attempted to provide a counter argument

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Debates are productive only when the parties are willing to change their views or there is a need to look at an issue from an external point of view. Since The Jabberwock won't accept any position other than "rape is a-okay!" and his point of view won't budge, countering his arguments is a waste of time.

The fact that you think, at any point whatsoever, that I've said "rape is a-okay" in any way, shape, or form, kinda proves that you have no fucking idea what you're babbling about. Good job, Einstein.

[Deleted]

Debates are productive only when the parties are willing to change their views or there is a need to look at an issue from an external point of view. Since The Jabberwock won't accept any position other than "rape is a-okay!" and his point of view won't budge, countering his arguments is a waste of time.

He didn't say that, that is the strawman you are trying to pull.. Mean while i have not see you make a single argument against anything he has said.

[Raelbo]

No, more people are sensibly siding with the one who doesn't have any evidence of being a rapist. Siding with "innocent until proven guilty" is the way everyone should side.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Not enough to actually convict the scumbag, but enough for any reasonable person to conclude what most likely happened.

You're a filthy fucking rapist.

There, you've been accused of rape. Prove that I'm lying and that you're not a rapist. No evidence exists either way. However, because you're a filthy, disgusting rapist, you're automatically guilty because you've been accused. Oh, and also, since you're an accused rapist, that also means anything you say is a lie, rapist. So it's a moot point to even try.

Except that there is evidence of what happened. He is not contesting that he took her to his home, in his car and that they had sex. Where their stories differ is regarding her consent to sex. He says she consented, she says she can't even remember getting into his car or what happened thereafter. And after she accused him of rape, he initiated a vindictive campaign of laying criminal charges against her and at some point down the line she took her own life.

Now anyone can look at the established facts, and draw their own conclusions of what actually happened. If you add other circumstantial evidence to the mix you can get an even better picture of what most likely happened. For example, he was 34, she was only 20. He is loaded financially, comes from a rich family, has a history of flaunting the law using money and influence.

Yes, we cannnot know with absolute certainty exactly what did unfold, but one can make an educated guess. Or, like you, one can make a retarded guess and then justify it by creating a ridiculous analogy.

That's how idiots want it to work, isn't it?

I wouldn't know. You seem to be the expert.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Not enough to actually convict the scumbag, but enough for any reasonable person to conclude what most likely happened.

No, there isn't ANY evidence WHATSOEVER. You need to read the article again if you think otherwise.

Except that there is evidence of what happened. He is not contesting that he took her to his home, in his car and that they had sex. Where their stories differ is regarding her consent to sex. He says she consented, she says she can't even remember getting into his car or what happened thereafter.

Yep. SO HE MUST BE THE ONE LYING! OMFG!!!!!!!! HE HAS A PENIS, GUILTY! GUILTY!!!!!!!!

Oh wait, no. It's up to her -- and any and all corroborating evidence, of which there is fuck-all, even after a rape kit -- to prove that her story is true since she is the one who is fucking accusing him of a serious crime.

After she accused him of rape, he initiated a vindictive campaign of laying criminal charges against her and at some point down the line she took her own life.

No he didn't. His LAWYER pointed out that she was, indeed, a convicted criminal. Which she was. Which, rightfully, puts a dubious spin on anything she has to claim in a case without any evidence backing her up.

But according to nitwits, since she has tits and a cunt, she MUST be telling the truth. For Reasons(tm). While the mean penis-wielding man is automatically guilty, because he got out of a DUI once. HOW SHOCKING!

Now anyone can look at the established facts, and draw their own conclusions of what actually happened. If you add other circumstantial evidence to the mix you can get an even better picture of what most likely happened.

Sure do. Everything points to her being a vindicitive, golddigging whore who, after realizing he wasn't going to be her boyfriend, sought out a payday by accusing him of rape and hoping he'd settle out of court. You know, like the various cases that have been plastered all over the news recently.

For example, he was 34, she was only 20. He is loaded financially, comes from a rich family, has a history of flaunting the law using money and influence.

Once, over a DUI. Which isn't "flaunting the law" any more than anyone else -- rich or otherwise -- would do if they could. As opposed to the slut with an actual criminal history.

Yes, we cannnot know with absolute certainty exactly what did unfold, but one can make an educated guess. Or, like you, one can make a retarded guess.

Ah, yes, because I'm siding with "innocent until proven guilty," but it involves cock, so naturally the cock is guilty no matter what. If you have a cock, you must be guilty. Believing anything else is "retarded."

[Raelbo]

He didn't say that, that is the strawman you are trying to pull..

Technically I'd agree with you. @Jabberwock isn't saying rape is ok. What is doing is actually worse, he is simply refusing to acknowledge that it is rape in the first place. So he can happily claim that he is against rape, but what he is actually doing is siding with rapists.

[Deleted]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Not enough to actually convict the scumbag, but enough for any reasonable person to conclude what most likely happened.



Except that there is evidence of what happened. He is not contesting that he took her to his home, in his car and that they had sex. Where their stories differ is regarding her consent to sex. He says she consented, she says she can't even remember getting into his car or what happened thereafter.

After she accused him of rape, he initiated a vindictive campaign of laying criminal charges against her and at some point down the line she took her own life.

Now anyone can look at the established facts, and draw their own conclusions of what actually happened. If you add other circumstantial evidence to the mix you can get an even better picture of what most likely happened. For example, he was 34, she was only 20. He is loaded financially, comes from a rich family, has a history of flaunting the law using money and influence.

Yes, we cannnot know with absolute certainty exactly what did unfold, but one can make an educated guess. Or, like you, one can make a retarded guess.



I wouldn't know. You seem to be the expert.

So in other words, you have no facts.

Your educated guess comes down to "i believe the woman because she is a woman". Your circumstantial evidence doesnt make it any better, her being a gold digger is far more likely then him being a rapist. Why would he rape? Enough girls who, like this girl, go willingly, and if not, he can miss the money for prostitutes. Its not like these beautiful girls go out with sugar daddies because they love them or anything like that.

No, we can not know what exactly happened, but i do know that she will have far more reason to lie then he has reason to rape.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Technically I'd agree with you. @Jabberwock isn't saying rape is ok. What is doing is actually worse, he is simply refusing to acknowledge that it is rape in the first place. So he can happily claim that he is against rape, but what he is actually doing is siding with rapists.

Bzzt, wrong again, Einstein.

[Deleted]

Technically I'd agree with you. @Jabberwock isn't saying rape is ok. What is doing is actually worse, he is simply refusing to acknowledge that it is rape in the first place. So he can happily claim that he is against rape, but what he is actually doing is siding with rapists.

He claimed that this case wasn't rape, and most evidence would support that claim.

[Mistame]

People need to learn to stop splitting my posts just because they're forum raging. I refuse to respond to single sentence rebuttals. Try better and form a coherent block of text. Otherwise I can't be arsed to go through the shit.

Splitting a post is the rational way of responding to specific points in a post with multiple points. So if you don't want "your" posts split, don't make more than one point. Or, you know, learn how to forum.

13 profanities in 2 posts. Look at me, mommy! I'm a big boy now cuz I use big boy words!

That you're worried about "bad words" is more indicative that you're a child than he is.

[satimy]

Except that far more people are siding with the alleged rapist than the alleged victim. The only pathetic thing I can see is how far small men are willing to stretch their imaginations to try and justify what is, if we're being honest with ourselves, most likely a case of a rich and entitled douche sexually abusing someone who is a lot less powerful than himself.

More people are siding with the person who is innocent until PROVEN guilty? oh the Horror

[Slant]

Splitting a post is the rational way of responding to specific points in a post with multiple points. So if you don't want "your" posts split, don't make more than one point. Or, you know, learn how to forum.

I'll remember that. Forum people are dumb. Don't overwhelm them with more than one idea at a time. Check. Thank you for the lesson.

[Saucexorzski]

I'll remember that. Forum people are dumb. Don't overwhelm them with more than one idea at a time. Check. Thank you for the lesson.

Nice post count non forum person.

[Mistame]

I'll remember that. Forum people are dumb. Don't overwhelm them with more than one idea at a time. Check. Thank you for the lesson.

I mean, you're the one throwing a fit over your posts being split by point, which, by the way, is the proper format of a typed response. Do you throw a fit when your veggies touch your meat, too?

[Wilfire]

Look at this infographic. It is overwhelmingly likely that he in fact is a rapist.

[Kithelle]

Don't know the whole story...but the nickname Sweet T does sound rather sleazy

Plus wouldn't be the first time the rich and powerful got away with doing bad things...

[Slant]

Nice post count non forum person.

Sarcasm seems to elude you...