USC Student Says She Was ? , The Nightclub Video Determined That Was A Lie
Options
Comments
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
C'mon bruh...........that's a stretch.
I mean, it's possible...........but not likely.
What it does do, is call her credibility into question.
It really all comes down to accountability.
Women need to stop using alcohol as an excuse for bad judgment.........and the legislature and/or courts needs to stop enacting/enforcing laws that help enable this foolishness.
What's ironic is the fact that..........if she got behind the wheel of a car immediately after her "? " and ended up killing someone.........she'd be charged with ? driving and vehicular homicide.
All that.................."I was too ? to realize what I was doing"................? wouldn't fly in that situtation........so it shouldn't be taken seriously in this situation either.
Hol up
Establishments that serve alcohol can be held in part responsible for the damaged caused by a ? driver that became ? on their premises
And in most places intoxicated individuals are capable of giving consent when they are the ones who decided to consume alcohol or drugs, but not if they were tricked into consuming them. Obviously if they pass out or were passed out prior or during the sex that's ?
That said, you dont have to consent to be held liable for a criminal activity. When you drive while inebriated you and you alone are breaking the law
Intent, however, is not present when you are a victim of sexual assault while intoxicated. It is not a conscious decision, regardless of degree of intoxication, to be sexually assaulted. It is something that happens to you by another individual. Right away, the situation is muddied, because it's not clear if the ? person fully understood that they were being propositioned, whether they were fully conscious or whether they revoked consent at some point
Another part of the reason why blame is placed in a less nuanced fashion is for deterence. It doesn't matter you were so ? up you don't even remember getting in the car. Instead of arranging a ride home from a sober person you chose to risk killing or seriously injuring multiple ppl. The state feels it has an interest in deterring that behavior with heavy punishments
You know damn well that's not what I was referring to.
Not gonna waste time going back and forth with you though...........because I'm assuming you're trolling.
You're full of ? , but you're intelligent enough to know the context of what I was saying.
No
Please expound
Think you're conflating a whole bunch different issues -
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
? claims can almost never be proven right or wrong, that's why this is such a highly contested issue. The best anyone can do is discredit the claim or the defense.
Right
The same can be said for false ? claims
Not all reports classified as unfounded are necessarily false. In some cases, women who were victims of ? were disbelieved, pressured into recanting, and charged with false reporting only to be vindicated later on
There are some women who exploit the law for their own gain. Same as we have ppl who make false police reports about a whole bunch of other ? . I could let u burrow my car and then report u stole my keys. But we have laws in place to address these cases
Otherwise besides enforcing the laws we do have on the books what can be done
Does not every police report/report of a crime deserve to be thoroughly investigated
I don't think anyone has a problem with every claim being investigated. I think the issue is that feminists tend to act like every claim should be treated as confirmed fact. You can see this in the way feminists like to claim that false accusations are rare? How do they even know that? The answer is they don't. They take the stats and seem to apply the assumption that any claim that wasn't proven wrong must be legitimate. That's ridiculous.
I don't know. I don't see how this problem with ? ever goes away until we find a way to read minds or something. In most of these cases, it's always going to come down to who you believe more. It might not be fair to believe the upstanding college guy over the slutty party girl and dismiss her claim off that alone. However, it's not fair to believe the sweet innocent girl over the rough cut guy, but that probably happens just as often even though it doesn't catch half the flack. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
? claims can almost never be proven right or wrong, that's why this is such a highly contested issue. The best anyone can do is discredit the claim or the defense.
Right
The same can be said for false ? claims
Not all reports classified as unfounded are necessarily false. In some cases, women who were victims of ? were disbelieved, pressured into recanting, and charged with false reporting only to be vindicated later on
There are some women who exploit the law for their own gain. Same as we have ppl who make false police reports about a whole bunch of other ? . I could let u burrow my car and then report u stole my keys. But we have laws in place to address these cases
Otherwise besides enforcing the laws we do have on the books what can be done
Does not every police report/report of a crime deserve to be thoroughly investigated
I don't think anyone has a problem with every claim being investigated. I think the issue is that feminists tend to act like every claim should be treated as confirmed fact. You can see this in the way feminists like to claim that false accusations are rare? How do they even know that? The answer is they don't. They take the stats and seem to apply the assumption that any claim that wasn't proven wrong must be legitimate. That's ridiculous.
I don't know. I don't see how this problem with ? ever goes away until we find a way to read minds or something. In most of these cases, it's always going to come down to who you believe more. It might not be fair to believe the upstanding college guy over the slutty party girl and dismiss her claim off that alone. However, it's not fair to believe the sweet innocent girl over the rough cut guy, but that probably happens just as often even though it doesn't catch half the flack.
and the MRA act and some posters act as though false accusations are widespread, omnipresent thing no one cares about
which is false
there has, is been a push to take all claims of sexual offences as face value and operate on the assumption that they are true because there is evidence that we as a society including law enforcement have failed alleged victims
a lot of this, unfortunately, is just chickens coming home to roost
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
Lying about ? hardly is punishable and when a lying ? is charged it's for wasting police resources or obstruction or some other misdemeanor offense.
when law enforcement agencies learn of false police reports, they usually charge the person making the report with a crime or false reporting or false swearing, depending on how the laws ....prosecution can result in a misdemeanor or felony conviction, again depending on the applicable laws and the nature of the false report
so what changes do you want to see? just harsher penalties?
because an allegation of ? is a very serious issue, i believe unfounded charges need to be publicized just as much as convictions and criminal charges pursued against anyone who is found to have knowingly made a false statement
and before you start "... our unwillingness to name victims, while at the same time being willing to name the accused is ... " as i've repeatedly mentioned this is not a matter of law, but rather a convention that the media adheres to. the "? shield" laws cover what can be admitted in court, not what can be published in the press. the press has collectively decided that it is ethical to publish the name of the accused (as long as they use "alleged") but unethical to publish the names of the accusers in these cases
that said, not all reports classified as unfounded means that the accuser lied..
false ? claim are rarely pursued and or successfully persecuted because of by their very nature they are often difficult to positively show as false....usually we have a reasonable suspicion but not the strong evidence to show it was false
and there is evidence that law enforcement do little to address reports of sexual assault, ?
there have been cases where ? kits were destroyed for no good reason; police didn't bother to talk to the accused; and cases where the case was marked as "unfounded" within hours of talking with the accuser
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-? -investigations-20161203-story.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/baltimore-doj-report-sexual-assault/
this ? doesn't just happen in maryland, it happens everywhere
here in michigan we had thousands and thousands of ? kits that have gone untested
we got cases were a person admits to ? but only gets a slap on the wrist
we are still far from the day when every woman who makes a ? accusation gets a proper police investigation and a fair hearing
so this idea that the system coddles women.... and that there are thousands and thousands of women who are working the system to their advantage is largely unfounded and i argue is ?
conversely the idea that any level of intoxication renders consent invalid, as many college campus programs are teaching today is problematic. though it is also good to also note this is far from the legal standard for incapacitation required in a criminal finding of sexual assault
and let's talk about the MRA and what they did was take the low bar for ? set in an attempt to address ? and leap over it. by redefining what is means to be ? by conflating ? down to mean every bad sexual experience and then claim men are equally victimized by it
it's a lot of hypocrisy to go around...and you ? are no better than the feminist you claim to hate lol
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
Lying about ? hardly is punishable and when a lying ? is charged it's for wasting police resources or obstruction or some other misdemeanor offense.
when law enforcement agencies learn of false police reports, they usually charge the person making the report with a crime or false reporting or false swearing, depending on how the laws ....prosecution can result in a misdemeanor or felony conviction, again depending on the applicable laws and the nature of the false report
so what changes do you want to see? just harsher penalties?
because an allegation of ? is a very serious issue, i believe unfounded charges need to be publicized just as much as convictions and criminal charges pursued against anyone who is found to have knowingly made a false statement
and before you start "... our unwillingness to name victims, while at the same time being willing to name the accused is ... " as i've repeatedly mentioned this is not a matter of law, but rather a convention that the media adheres to. the "? shield" laws cover what can be admitted in court, not what can be published in the press. the press has collectively decided that it is ethical to publish the name of the accused (as long as they use "alleged") but unethical to publish the names of the accusers in these cases
that said, not all reports classified as unfounded means that the accuser lied..
false ? claim are rarely pursued and or successfully persecuted because of by their very nature they are often difficult to positively show as false....usually we have a reasonable suspicion but not the strong evidence to show it was false
and there is evidence that law enforcement do little to address reports of sexual assault, ?
there have been cases where ? kits were destroyed for no good reason; police didn't bother to talk to the accused; and cases where the case was marked as "unfounded" within hours of talking with the accuser
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-? -investigations-20161203-story.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/baltimore-doj-report-sexual-assault/
this ? doesn't just happen in maryland, it happens everywhere
here in michigan we had thousands and thousands of ? kits that have gone untested
we got cases were a person admits to ? but only gets a slap on the wrist
we are still far from the day when every woman who makes a ? accusation gets a proper police investigation and a fair hearing
so this idea that the system coddles women.... and that there are thousands and thousands of women who are working the system to their advantage is largely unfounded and i argue is ?
conversely the idea that any level of intoxication renders consent invalid, as many college campus programs are teaching today is problematic. though it is also good to also note this is far from the legal standard for incapacitation required in a criminal finding of sexual assault
and let's talk about the MRA and what they did was take the low bar for ? set in an attempt to address ? and leap over it. by redefining what is means to be ? by conflating ? down to mean every bad sexual experience and then claim men are equally victimized by it
it's a lot of hypocrisy to go around...and you ? are no better than the feminist you claim to hate lol
Let me sum up your post
'Jake shot a black man'
'But what about black on black crime ?'
your vision is blurred. You keep on picking side whereas most of the male posters advocating for a CONCENSUS. Its not about the gender of the liar its about SOCIAL RELATIONS. There are no social benefits to this fuckery on both sides. RAPISTS AND THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT IT NEED TO BE OUTCAST.
None of them are doing something good to our society. The repercussions of ? are felt on a social scale.
The consequences are a DEHUMANIZED SOCIETY. The trust flame is fading away. To the benefits of
Virtual reality
Sexbots
There is no logic in protecting LIARS. I cant trust a system who protect liars. And as a man if the system protects females when they lie blatantly about ? then i wont approach them in normal public space.
I wont have my name on the news for having DRUNKEN SEX WITH A WILLING ? WOMAN.
Std risks
Unwanted pregnancy risk, plus in that case THE FEMALE HAS 100% OF THE ABORTION DECISION AKA CHILD SUPPORT.
FALSE ? ACCUSATION WITHOUT A DAMN REPERCUSSION
For which reward? 5mn of sexual pleasure.
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »
and the MRA act and some posters act as though false accusations are widespread, omnipresent thing no one cares about
which is false
there has, is been a push to take all claims of sexual offences as face value and operate on the assumption that they are true because there is evidence that we as a society including law enforcement have failed alleged victims
a lot of this, unfortunately, is just chickens coming home to roost
Again, ? is a hard crime to prosecute. Law enforcement probably has done a poor job handling it over the years, but even if they did their job right, it would still be hard to get those cases right.
Feminists like acting like rapes go unpunished because no one gives a ? . That's not really true though. Rapes largely go unpunished because someone accusing someone else of something is typically not enough to erode all reasonable doubt. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »
and the MRA act and some posters act as though false accusations are widespread, omnipresent thing no one cares about
which is false
there has, is been a push to take all claims of sexual offences as face value and operate on the assumption that they are true because there is evidence that we as a society including law enforcement have failed alleged victims
a lot of this, unfortunately, is just chickens coming home to roost
Again, ? is a hard crime to prosecute. Law enforcement probably has done a poor job handling it over the years, but even if they did their job right, it would still be hard to get those cases right.
Feminists like acting like rapes go unpunished because no one gives a ? . That's not really true though. Rapes largely go unpunished because someone accusing someone else of something is typically not enough to erode all reasonable doubt.
bruh
i'm mainly referring to victim blaming
bad policy...i.e. accuser not being notified of when the ? kit is being destroyed
law enforcement not doing their jobs...cases where the police don't even bother to speak with the accused or classifying the claim as unfounded within hours of the report
according to the DOJ these infractions are common in places like baltimore
you think it only happens there? -
LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
Lying about ? hardly is punishable and when a lying ? is charged it's for wasting police resources or obstruction or some other misdemeanor offense.
when law enforcement agencies learn of false police reports, they usually charge the person making the report with a crime or false reporting or false swearing, depending on how the laws ....prosecution can result in a misdemeanor or felony conviction, again depending on the applicable laws and the nature of the false report
so what changes do you want to see? just harsher penalties?
because an allegation of ? is a very serious issue, i believe unfounded charges need to be publicized just as much as convictions and criminal charges pursued against anyone who is found to have knowingly made a false statement
and before you start "... our unwillingness to name victims, while at the same time being willing to name the accused is ... " as i've repeatedly mentioned this is not a matter of law, but rather a convention that the media adheres to. the "? shield" laws cover what can be admitted in court, not what can be published in the press. the press has collectively decided that it is ethical to publish the name of the accused (as long as they use "alleged") but unethical to publish the names of the accusers in these cases
that said, not all reports classified as unfounded means that the accuser lied..
false ? claim are rarely pursued and or successfully persecuted because of by their very nature they are often difficult to positively show as false....usually we have a reasonable suspicion but not the strong evidence to show it was false
and there is evidence that law enforcement do little to address reports of sexual assault, ?
there have been cases where ? kits were destroyed for no good reason; police didn't bother to talk to the accused; and cases where the case was marked as "unfounded" within hours of talking with the accuser
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-? -investigations-20161203-story.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/baltimore-doj-report-sexual-assault/
this ? doesn't just happen in maryland, it happens everywhere
here in michigan we had thousands and thousands of ? kits that have gone untested
we got cases were a person admits to ? but only gets a slap on the wrist
we are still far from the day when every woman who makes a ? accusation gets a proper police investigation and a fair hearing
so this idea that the system coddles women.... and that there are thousands and thousands of women who are working the system to their advantage is largely unfounded and i argue is ?
conversely the idea that any level of intoxication renders consent invalid, as many college campus programs are teaching today is problematic. though it is also good to also note this is far from the legal standard for incapacitation required in a criminal finding of sexual assault
and let's talk about the MRA and what they did was take the low bar for ? set in an attempt to address ? and leap over it. by redefining what is means to be ? by conflating ? down to mean every bad sexual experience and then claim men are equally victimized by it
it's a lot of hypocrisy to go around...and you ? are no better than the feminist you claim to hate lol
Let me sum up your post
'Jake shot a black man'
'But what about black on black crime ?'
your vision is blurred. You keep on picking side whereas most of the male posters advocating for a CONCENSUS. Its not about the gender of the liar its about SOCIAL RELATIONS. There are no social benefits to this fuckery on both sides. RAPISTS AND THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT IT NEED TO BE OUTCAST.
None of them are doing something good to our society. The repercussions of ? are felt on a social scale.
The consequences are a DEHUMANIZED SOCIETY. The trust flame is fading away. To the benefits of
Virtual reality
Sexbots
There is no logic in protecting LIARS. I cant trust a system who protect liars. And as a man if the system protects females when they lie blatantly about ? then i wont approach them in normal public space.
I wont have my name on the news for having DRUNKEN SEX WITH A WILLING ? WOMAN.
Std risks
Unwanted pregnancy risk, plus in that case THE FEMALE HAS 100% OF THE ABORTION DECISION AKA CHILD SUPPORT.
FALSE ? ACCUSATION WITHOUT A DAMN REPERCUSSION
For which reward? 5mn of sexual pleasure.
my vision is blurred? lol
no...
in all seriousness
i'm speaking of the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle
and how this need to demonize each other, both sides have failed to acknowledge the ways in which the system has failed both the accused and accusers
yes, lying is bad and the consequences should be fitting of the crime...i have said as much multiple times
but false ? claims are rarely pursued and or successfully persecuted because of by their very nature they are often difficult to positively show as false...same as ? claims
it's not because "the system protects females when they lie blatantly about ? ".... you are either over simplifying the matter, ignorant and or being antagonistic
i could very well say "the system is deliberately aiding accusers" because in some places the accuser has to help pay for the kit....or because ? kits systemically go untested and or destroyed.... but that would be dismissing the very legitimate concerns you and others have raised
-
LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY wrote: »Thanks to these liars they will put even more CAMERAS.
Liars destroy societal trust, and force society to HAVE AN EYE ON EVERY MOVE.
Everything related to intimacy will be eventually recorded. Imagine your life destroyed because somebody lied about an intimate moment...
Thats how im gonna sell the sex tape with my woman.
"Baby I gotta have proof you gave consent, you crazy ? you" -
She don't want to be a thot so she claimed ?
