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

[Raelbo]

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

“Bunn insisted he and Megan had consensual sex."

That is called evidence. It's a witness statement by the accused confirming some of the facts of the case. You accused me of sympathising with the alleged victim purely on the basis that she was female, and that I supported the notion that if any woman cries rape she should be believed without evidence.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what circumstantial evidence means, or how it can help to paint a picture of what likely happened. If you're not seeing the picture of what most likely happened then you must be a bit blind.

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.

She went to the hospital. They bungled it. Not her fault. Now if you apply a bit of brainpower to the scenario, why would she go to the hospital if her story was false? You're assuming that a lack of evidence from the hospital is because there was none. What is the basis for that assumption (especially since all the news stories seem to corroborate the assertion that the hospital staff on duty that night were simply incompent to perform the necessary function)? I'll tell, and it's very obvious given your horrendous attitude here: You're horribly biased.

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.

Firstly, where is the evidence that she was a convicted criminal? What was she convicted of? How does it have a bearing on whether she was making up a rape accusation?

Secondly, if we apply your standard, then I would point to the established fact that the accused used his wealth and family influence to overturn a DUI conviction. I mean really, if we're going to bring in character here, this guy certainly fits the bill of being the kind of person he is accused of being. It also supports the notion that the criminal charges were simply fabricated to intimidate the victim into backing off.

Thirdly, she committed suicide. Why would anyone who is guilty of constructing a clever scheme to deprive an unfortunate rich man out of money by creating a false rape accusation end up killing themselves? The sort of personality that comes up with these schemes is exactly the kind of personality that wouldn't commit suicide.

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!

Hey @MeHMeH. See Jabberwock also likes using strawmen!

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.

Some citations are needed here. FYI, I have done a bit of reading up on the case, so I think you're making stuff up.

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."

No, because you're allowing personal bias to override reason, logic and common sense. If I was a judge in the case, I would most likely have to rule him innocent on the grounds of reasonable doubt, even if I knew that the probability of his actual guilt was very high. But I am not a judge. I am private individual with a functioning brain who can see that injustice has been here.

Given what you've written here, I don't expect you to really understand this. I don't think you're capable.

[Deleted]

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

Just to bad for you that this is not an argument for his guilt even if this chart was not proven to be skewing the number

[Slant]

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?

Give me a proper editor and I can respond in kind. But MMO-C has probably the oldest shittiest forum editor I have seen in recent years. And I refuse to do those quote tags manually. So I've decided not to engage such posts any longer or simply just quote them in one block and respond to whatever it is I want to respond to. In his case, I didn't feel like engaging in the conversation much longer, so I gave him my 2cents about his nitpicking my article. I can literally take your post and split it into 10 segments, finding something to comment on in every word, see how you like that.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Again, statistics don't really gel well with crime cases here. Chances are if a case is discussed on this forum it must be abnormal. Otherwise it wouldn't make the news and thus not this forum.

[Mistame]

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

It's cute that you think this actually means something in regards to false accusations. Interestingly, it's significantly more difficult to prove a false accusation than to prove a rape. Not to mention the graphic assumes that any "rape" not proven to be a false accusation is legitimate, even though it wasn't actually reported and thus, is just part of a made up number to being with. For it truly to be accurate, remove of all the lightest brown indicators (the ones labeled "Rapist" and change "Jailed" to "Rapist" since not convicted = not guilty and thus, not proven to be a "rapist".

Give me a proper editor and I can respond in kind. But MMO-C has probably the oldest shittiest forum editor I have seen in recent years. And I refuse to do those quote tags manually. So I've decided not to engage such posts any longer or simply just quote them in one block and respond to whatever it is I want to respond to. In his case, I didn't feel like engaging in the conversation much longer, so I gave him my 2cents about his nitpicking my article. I can literally take your post and split it into 10 segments, finding something to comment on in every word, see how you like that.

I've yet to see a forum edit that lets you selectively "split" a post while retaining the proper quotes. It's not that difficult to press the quote button and paste in everything after the =. But whatever, you be you.

[Jotaux]

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

Where would a case like this fall on the graphic? Nothing was proven either way. Does it count as 1/2 falsely accused, 1/2 reported rapist? Does it not show up at all and just make the infographic incomplete?

[Raelbo]

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

That depends on how you define rape and whether you accept intoxicated consent as valid. And quite frankly that is not a debate I am prepared to have with you because you've already made up the mind on the matter as evidenced in numerous threads on the topic. Needless to say, I do not agree with nor respect the validity of your arguments on that topic, as I expect you feel about mine.

[Jotaux]

That depends on how you define rape and whether you accept intoxicated consent as valid. And quite frankly that is not a debate I am prepared to have with you because you've already made up the mind on the matter as evidenced in numerous threads on the topic. Needless to say, I do not agree with nor respect the validity of your arguments on that topic, as I expect you feel about mine.

By all accounts would the male in this story also be intoxicated? Would you accept his intoxicated consent as valid?

[Mistame]

That depends on how you define rape and whether you accept intoxicated consent as valid. And quite frankly that is not a debate I am prepared to have with you because you've already made up the mind on the matter as evidenced in numerous threads on the topic. Needless to say, I do not agree with nor respect the validity of your arguments on that topic, as I expect you feel about mine.

I mean, if she was unconscious, it was rape. If she was drunk and consented, it wasn't. It's really not that difficult a concept.

[primalmatter]

Just because both are possibility doesn't mean they're equally probable. I fail to understand why so many people want to white knight for the poor little rich boy here.



Weak attempt at a strawman....



What part of "don't fuck drunk people" ignores personal responsibility? My argument is ALL about personal responsibility. Your argument is not. It's about selective responsibility.

Just because victims allow themselves to get drunk does not give license to other people to take advantage of them and get away with rape. You seem to think that just because someone did something stupid that other people are suddenly absolved of their responsibilities? What a load of .....

You are responsible for yourself... using your warped logic if a drunk got into their car and mowed down a group of children not only is the drunk blameless but should have every right to sue the families for the damage to their car.

It is a insane position to take.

[Raelbo]

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

You mean like everyone did with Osama Bin Laden?

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct pertaining to one's status as a convicted criminal. It has not been, nor should ever be the basis for making an informed opinion.

I am not arguing that the courts must send him to prison. I am arguing that in a just and fair world, he probably would and that more effort should be made to create laws and legal instutions which would result in higher conviction rates for actual rapists.

If you can't see how screwed up everything about this case was, then I can't really help you.

[satimy]

You mean like everyone did with Osama Bin Laden?

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct pertaining to one's status as a convicted criminal. It has not been, nor should ever be the basis for making an informed opinion.

I am not arguing that the courts must send him to prison. I am arguing that in a just and fair world, he probably would and that more effort should be made to create laws and legal instutions which would result in higher conviction rates for actual rapists.

If you can't see how screwed up everything about this case was, then I can't really help you.

Oh I thought this case happened in the United States, not a cave in Pakistan.


With today's feminist movement and their infiltration of the legal system there's probably thousands of false sly convicted men. I have no issue with shooting actual rapists in the head, just prove it first

[Deleted]

That is called evidence. It's a witness statement by the accused confirming some of the facts of the case. You accused me of sympathising with the alleged victim purely on the basis that she was female, and that I supported the notion that if any woman cries rape she should be believed without evidence.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what circumstantial evidence means, or how it can help to paint a picture of what likely happened. If you're not seeing the picture of what most likely happened then you must be a bit blind.



She went to the hospital. They bungled it. Not her fault. Now if you apply a bit of brainpower to the scenario, why would she go to the hospital if her story was false? You're assuming that a lack of evidence from the hospital is because there was none. What is the basis for that assumption (especially since all the news stories seem to corroborate the assertion that the hospital staff on duty that night were simply incompent to perform the necessary function)? I'll tell, and it's very obvious given your horrendous attitude here: You're horribly biased.



Firstly, where is the evidence that she was a convicted criminal? What was she convicted of? How does it have a bearing on whether she was making up a rape accusation?

Secondly, if we apply your standard, then I would point to the established fact that the accused used his wealth and family influence to overturn a DUI conviction. I mean really, if we're going to bring in character here, this guy certainly fits the bill of being the kind of person he is accused of being. It also supports the notion that the criminal charges were simply fabricated to intimidate the victim into backing off.

Thirdly, she committed suicide. Why would anyone who is guilty of constructing a clever scheme to deprive an unfortunate rich man out of money by creating a false rape accusation end up killing themselves? The sort of personality that comes up with these schemes is exactly the kind of personality that wouldn't commit suicide.



Hey @MeHMeH. See Jabberwock also likes using strawmen!



Some citations are needed here. FYI, I have done a bit of reading up on the case, so I think you're making stuff up.



No, because you're allowing personal bias to override reason, logic and common sense. If I was a judge in the case, I would most likely have to rule him innocent on the grounds of reasonable doubt, even if I knew that the probability of his actual guilt was very high. But I am not a judge. I am private individual with a functioning brain who can see that injustice has been here.

Given what you've written here, I don't expect you to really understand this. I don't think you're capable.

Not really, you have not given any reason other then that "she is a girl" for believing her.

Your first point is know to only the people working on that case and was (shockingly) not released in the article. But somehow i do not think that a judge would have something like a criminal record faked. So i have to go with the judge on this one, there was a criminal record.

Your second point is invalid because for the simple reason that everybody does this same thing. Everybody accused of anything will do everything in their power to not be convicted of this thing. This guys family just has a lot of it to spare. And trying to not be guilty in a court of law by any means that you can doesn't imply that you are guilty, it implies that you do not wan to go to prison.

Your third point, because she was noticing that it went horribly wrong for her. That people who do these kinds of things aren't people who generally off them selves if it not succeeds is true. However, if she felt used and therefore tried to cry rape then it is exactly the kind of person that would kill them selves.

If i where to guess what happened it would be something like, he came on to her, she was told he was rich. She came home with him, they fucked, he came and showed her the door and she felt used. She called her friend, made up a pretty story because, hey the guy is rich! But it failed horribly and she didn't know what to do anymore.

Is he a douchbag that did a douchbag thing? Absolutely, but that doesnt make him a rapist.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

That is called evidence.

Raelbo is an unrelenting rapist and child molester. I witnessed it all, true story bruh!

There's evidence, too. Ergo, you are 100% an unrelenting rapist and child molester. That's called evidence in your world, ergo, it must be actual evidence. And it's doubly 100% true if you also happen to have a penis.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what circumstantial evidence means, or how it can help to paint a picture of what likely happened. If you're not seeing the picture of what most likely happened then you must be a bit blind.

No, I understand it perfectly. I'm just going by the actual circumstantial evidence -- a convicted criminal with a record who met, flirted with, went home, and had drinks with a semi-famous multimillionaire, and knowingly fucked him (she was not "passed out drunk" as some of the idiots in this thread keep vomiting out of their virtual mouts). As opposed to people like you who just want to see him thrown in jail because he got out of a DUI once. Oh, and because he has a cock and balls.

And again, did he even see how he "got out of it?" Hint: He just got his license back after proving that he needed to be able to drive for his work. He was still convicted of the original crime; he just got his fucking driver's license back.

She went to the hospital. They bungled it.

ROFL! <ahem> No, they didn't bungle anything. There was nothing to find. That's not "bungling it." That's just "way more proof that she's a lying cunt than she is an innocent victim."

I mean really, if we're going to bring in character here, this guy certainly fits the bill of being the kind of person he is accused of being. It also supports the notion that the criminal charges were simply fabricated to intimidate the victim into backing off.

How, exactly? Because he got drunk and drove a car once? How the FUCK does that make him a rapist? XD

Thirdly, she committed suicide. Why would anyone who is guilty of constructing a clever scheme to deprive an unfortunate rich man out of money by creating a false rape accusation end up killing themselves? The sort of personality that comes up with these schemes is exactly the kind of personality that wouldn't commit suicide.

Because she was a fucking nutjob anyway. No sane person would commit suicide over what was described by her herself. "Oh noes, someone put their penis in me after I flirted with them, went home with them, had some drinks with them, and then fucked them so gently that even an invasive rape kit couldn't find a thing wrong. THE HORROR, HOW CAN I EVER LIVE WITH MYSELF NOW?! OH WOE IS ME, I SHALL HAVE NIGHTMARES OF THIS HORRIBLE, LIFEWRECKING, ETERNALLY TRAUMATIC EVENT FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE! BOOHOOHOO!" That's the definition of pathetic.

And if commiting suicide is automatic proof that someone is a rapist, there must be waaaaay more people getting raped than I can even fathom. I mean, just a few months ago an 80-something year old man down the street hung himself. Poor guy must have been seriously hardcore raped just before that...

Hey @MeHMeH. See Jabberwock also likes using strawmen!

You people really should learn what terms mean before you use them.

No, because you're allowing personal bias to override reason, logic and common sense. If I was a judge in the case, I would most likely have to rule him innocent on the grounds of reasonable doubt, even if I knew that the probability of his actual guilt was very high. But I am not a judge. I am private individual with a functioning brain who can see that injustice has been here.

My one and only bias is "innocent until proven guilty." Guilt -- even reasonable doubt -- wasn't established, not by a Texas mile. And the entire story, from start to finish, suggests strongly that she was, in fact, just another golddigger looking to either score a rich boyfriend or a fat payday after she realized the former wasn't going to happen.

Given what you've written here, I don't expect you to really understand this. I don't think you're capable.

I understand perfectly "innocent until proven guilty." I also understand that "the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused." Both of those concepts seem fucking alien to people like you.

[Raelbo]

You are responsible for yourself... using your warped logic if a drunk got into their car and mowed down a group of children not only is the drunk blameless but should have every right to sue the families for the damage to their car.

It is a insane position to take.

What is insane is your logic. Please explain to me how my logic translates into your scenario? No, on second thoughts, don't bother. If you cannot see how retarded your logic is, no amount of explaining by me or anyone will be able to help you...

[Deleted]

That depends on how you define rape and whether you accept intoxicated consent as valid. And quite frankly that is not a debate I am prepared to have with you because you've already made up the mind on the matter as evidenced in numerous threads on the topic. Needless to say, I do not agree with nor respect the validity of your arguments on that topic, as I expect you feel about mine.

Here is the thing, you accuse me of not wanting to make up my mind while you are doing the exact same thing. The only thing i am doing is holding people personally responsible for their own actions. If she decided to get drunk and fuck some rich guy that is all on her, she doesnt get to say the next morning that its raped because she was drunk. She doesnt get to cry rape because he kicked her out as soon as he came. The only time when you can not consent is when you are knocked out drunk, as long as you can still walk, talk and do your thing you, and you alone are responsible for your own actions.

[Raelbo]

Raelbo is an unrelenting rapist and child molester. I witnessed it all, true story bruh!

At this point I think I'll just let any bystanders here judge your comments for themselves.

[Sinyc]

http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/0...ealthy-rapist/

So you post an obviously biased article that only shows one side of the situation? Ok then...

It's super shitty what the police did. I can only assume they are on the payroll of that family? Even if that were true, it's no excuse to build a case against the alleged victim. I wasn't able to find any eye witness or corroborating stories for EITHER party involved here... So it's hard to say what actually happened.

I guess one question I have is, had this guy actually been charged and found guilty would Megan still be alive?

[Raelbo]

Here is the thing, you accuse me of not wanting to make up my mind while you are doing the exact same thing. The only thing i am doing is holding people personally responsible for their own actions.

No you're not. You're being a hypocrite. You're wanting to hold people who make themselves vulnerable accountable for their actions, while absolving those who choose to prey on them from any accountability whatsoever.

If she decided to get drunk and fuck some rich guy that is all on her, she doesnt get to say the next morning that its raped because she was drunk. She doesnt get to cry rape because he kicked her out as soon as he came. The only time when you can not consent is when you are knocked out drunk, as long as you can still walk, talk and do your thing you, and you alone are responsible for your own actions.

And I believe society needs to start becoming stricter on individuals who choose to take advantage of people who are intoxicated. There are just too many grey areas open to abuse by declaring drunk consent to be always valid. It's a stupid default because it allows rapists to get a free ride. A far more sensible approach is to assume that drunken sex is invalid. Then if you're in doubt simply don't have sex.

Like I have said before, consensual sex happens ALL THE TIME. If you have to get someone drunk in order to get them in bed, then theres a strong chance that something is not ok. Why take the risk? I'll tell you why: Because some people believe that getting laid is more important than the other person's wellbeing. Which is, honestly, just sick.

[Jotaux]

At this point I think I'll just let any bystanders here judge your comments for themselves.

Well The Jabberwock made the claim and is a witness. I guess we should just believe him.

[Deleted]

No you're not. You're being a hypocrite. You're wanting to hold people who make themselves vulnerable accountable for their actions, while absolving those who choose to prey on them from any accountability whatsoever.



And I believe society needs to start becoming stricter on individuals who choose to take advantage of people who are intoxicated. There are just too many grey areas open to abuse by declaring drunk consent to be always valid. It's a stupid default because it allows rapists to get a free ride. A far more sensible approach is to assume that drunken sex is invalid. Then if you're in doubt simply don't have sex.

Like I have said before, consensual sex happens ALL THE TIME. If you have to get someone drunk in order to get them in bed, then theres a strong chance that something is not ok. Why take the risk? I'll tell you why: Because some people believe that getting laid is more important than the other person's wellbeing. Which is, honestly, just sick.

Nope, im just holding people responsible for their own actions. Just because you have been drinking doesn't absolve you from blame from making stupid decisions. If she is so impaired that she does things that she normally would not do then that is solely on her. You are blaming a guy that doesnt know her for not knowing what she normally is like, its insane.
You have no proof what so ever that this guy "preyed" on her other then that she said so. Everything else only proofs the innocence of this guy.

And having to proof a crime is somehow stupid?? People get drunk all by them selves and make stupid decisions all by them selves all the time too. Drinking isn't some magic card that you can pull so that you are not responsible for your actions.