Poll of the Day > Making sexual harassment claims that are over 30 years old.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Obviously talking about the Kavanaugh story.

As a man, I feel like I'm put in this very awkward position nowadays (in the era of #MeToo and extreme political correctness surrounding any and all issues around gender, ethnicity, religion, etc).....where I just have to sit back and wonder how the hell I'm supposed to even feel about any of this shit.

How can any rational human being not be skeptical?

Why is it that the moment a man starts to get popular......runs for political office, has a new movie coming out, releases a new music album, etc...........you have women magically start coming out of the woodwork, claiming he kinda/sorta/maybe put them in an awkward sexual situation 26 years ago on a camping trip where alcohol may or may not have been involved? Or something to that degree?

And the woman will always say, "I'm not trying to ruin his career. I just thought it was important to mention now, for the sake of the victims. Any victims. Of any kind of assault."

Uh....what?

You don't want to ruin his career but you conveniently waited decades to mention this to the press, and when you finally do...it's conveniently around the time he is is running for some kind of political office? What the actual hell, lady? This is CLEARLY you attempting to ruin his career. There's no other way to look at it.

Either the assault didn't happen.....or you simply sat on it until you could maximize the damage done to him, even if that required waiting decades.

Doesn't add up.

And maybe she has valid points. And maybe she doesn't. Let's not forget the fact that women CAN lie. Women didn't magically lose the ability to lie just because we have things like Fortnite and Instagram now. A man is innocent until proven guilty afterall....right? Due process IS a constitutional right.....right?

Because it seems like all that is changing. And it scares the shit out of me.
---

Let's be honest, Kavanaugh is a shit pick anyways, ok?
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Why is it that the moment a man starts to get popular......runs for political office, has a new movie coming out, releases a new music album, etc...........you have women magically start coming out of the woodwork, claiming he kinda/sorta/maybe put them in an awkward sexual situation 26 years ago on a camping trip where alcohol may or may not have been involved? Or something to that degree?

Well, yeah. It actually does make sense. When you try to bury your feelings for decades, then your abuser suddenly becomes omnipresent, of course those bad memories are going to come flooding back.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Because it seems like all that is changing. And it scares the shit out of me.

It shouldn't scare you unless you've done something bad.
---

ClarkDuke posted...

Let's be honest, Kavanaugh is a shit pick anyways, ok?

It's possible to both agree with this point and TC's
---

Didn't a therapist confirm she discussed this privately with him like six years ago?
---

Golden Road posted...

Well, yeah. It actually does make sense. When you try to bury your feelings for decades, then your abuser suddenly becomes omnipresent, of course those bad memories are going to come flooding back.

If she was raped/harassed/assaulted, why would she "bury" those feelings? Why not go to the proper authorities immediately? Or, at the very least, within weeks or months after the traumatic experience?

Yeah yeah, I understand that sometimes it takes a while to build up the courage to confront your attacker.....but 35 years??? And that's assuming he was even an "attacker" vs. some horny young guy that maybe made her feel a little 'awkward' at one time at a party. It's not like he's a fucking RAPIST or something.

Waiting 35 years and THEN deciding to go public....is shady as hell.

And if him running for congress is what "set her off"....then I think jealousy could be a bigger factor than actual trauma.

Like I said....it just doesn't add up.

It shouldn't scare you unless you've done something bad.

I know I haven't done anything bad. But the rest of the world doesn't know that. We live in a time where there is absolutely NOTHING keeping a bitter ex from making terrible claims about you on social media. It could happen to any of us at any time. The only difference is that most of us aren't running for Congress right now, or have a new Hollywood movie coming out, etc.

But if I were to suddenly make it big as some kind of movie director....you can bet your ass there would be legions of people who make it their goal in life to sift through ALL my social media from the past several years....to take ANY little post out of context and make me look like Hitler. Even if that required DOCTORING posts and making up stuff entirely from thin air.

And a bitter exgirlfriend who cheated on ME......but she is suddenly jealous to see my success and the knowledge that she is the one who messed it all up, but she is too proud to blame herself, so she goes for my carotid artery by claiming I made her feel uncomfortable on a camping trip or some shit, and paints me as some kind of pseudo-rapist with no factual evidence of any kind.

And, of course, the Left-leaning media jumps all over it.

And my life is ruined.

For nothing.

So yeah. I think all men are allowed to be a little afraid right now.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

I know I haven't done anything bad. But the rest of the world doesn't know that. We live in a time where there is absolutely NOTHING keeping a bitter ex from making terrible claims about you on social media. It could happen to any of us at any time. The only difference is that most of us aren't running for Congress right now, or have a new Hollywood movie coming out, etc.

But if I were to suddenly make it big as some kind of movie director....you can bet your ass there would be legions of people who make it their goal in life to sift through ALL my social media from the past several years....to take ANY little post out of context and make me look like Hitler. Even if that required DOCTORING posts and making up stuff entirely from thin air.

And a bitter exgirlfriend who cheated on ME......but she is suddenly jealous to see my success and the knowledge that she is the one who messed it all up, but she is too proud to blame herself, so she goes for my carotid artery by claiming I made her feel uncomfortable on a camping trip or some shit, and paints me as some kind of pseudo-rapist with no factual evidence of any kind.

And, of course, the Left-leaning media jumps all over it.

And my life is ruined.

For nothing.

So yeah. I think all men are allowed to be a little afraid right now.

but like

did this actually happen

cause otherwise you're ignoring the much more serious threat of zombies or space laser wolves
---

Blighboy posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

I know I haven't done anything bad. But the rest of the world doesn't know that. We live in a time where there is absolutely NOTHING keeping a bitter ex from making terrible claims about you on social media. It could happen to any of us at any time. The only difference is that most of us aren't running for Congress right now, or have a new Hollywood movie coming out, etc.

But if I were to suddenly make it big as some kind of movie director....you can bet your ass there would be legions of people who make it their goal in life to sift through ALL my social media from the past several years....to take ANY little post out of context and make me look like Hitler. Even if that required DOCTORING posts and making up stuff entirely from thin air.

And a bitter exgirlfriend who cheated on ME......but she is suddenly jealous to see my success and the knowledge that she is the one who messed it all up, but she is too proud to blame herself, so she goes for my carotid artery by claiming I made her feel uncomfortable on a camping trip or some shit, and paints me as some kind of pseudo-rapist with no factual evidence of any kind.

And, of course, the Left-leaning media jumps all over it.

And my life is ruined.

For nothing.

So yeah. I think all men are allowed to be a little afraid right now.

but like

did this actually happen

cause otherwise you're ignoring the much more serious threat of zombies or space laser wolves

Hahaha, dude, it's the basic principle of Due Process being dead in 2018.

It might not apply to ME right now, but it does apply to many other men who are getting ruined for no good reason.

I still think it's an absolute miracle that Chris Hardwick got his job back at AMC. But the false allegations still turned a ton of people against him. 26 people quit when he got hired, because they were so "upset" he got his job back. You know, for being innocent of all allegations.
---

Ok, can we please stop with the life is ruined bullshit?

Its absolutely nonsense. Woody Allen still makes movies. Roman Polanski still makes movies. Louis CK waited 9 months before appearing on stage again. Kobe won an Oscar. Harvey Weinstein is still worth 50 million dollars. And Brett Kavanaugh is still a federal judge if he doesnt get confirmed to the Supreme Court.

None of these men are ruined.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Blighboy posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

I know I haven't done anything bad. But the rest of the world doesn't know that. We live in a time where there is absolutely NOTHING keeping a bitter ex from making terrible claims about you on social media. It could happen to any of us at any time. The only difference is that most of us aren't running for Congress right now, or have a new Hollywood movie coming out, etc.

But if I were to suddenly make it big as some kind of movie director....you can bet your ass there would be legions of people who make it their goal in life to sift through ALL my social media from the past several years....to take ANY little post out of context and make me look like Hitler. Even if that required DOCTORING posts and making up stuff entirely from thin air.

And a bitter exgirlfriend who cheated on ME......but she is suddenly jealous to see my success and the knowledge that she is the one who messed it all up, but she is too proud to blame herself, so she goes for my carotid artery by claiming I made her feel uncomfortable on a camping trip or some shit, and paints me as some kind of pseudo-rapist with no factual evidence of any kind.

And, of course, the Left-leaning media jumps all over it.

And my life is ruined.

For nothing.

So yeah. I think all men are allowed to be a little afraid right now.

but like

did this actually happen

cause otherwise you're ignoring the much more serious threat of zombies or space laser wolves

Hahaha, dude, it's the basic principle of Due Process being dead in 2018.

It might not apply to ME right now, but it does apply to many other men who are getting ruined for no good reason.

I still think it's an absolute miracle that Chris Hardwick got his job back at AMC. But the false allegations still turned a ton of people against him. 26 people quit when he got hired, because they were so "upset" he got his job back. You know, for being innocent of all allegations.

Or perhaps even if he wasnt guilty of those specific allegations was a huge dick?

Also, why do you say absolute miracle? Please post a list of men who have seen all this significant harm in the wake of allegations true or false. Im not saying they dont exist but I want some names.
---

I'm not in any way a Kavanaugh supporter but I do think it's ridiculous to try to destroy someone's career over something they did when they were 16. (Allegedly this took place during the summer before his Junior year so I'm assuming that's how old he was.) Yes it does sound aggressive and stupid and he should definitely have to do something to try to remedy his actions. But teenage guys do inexplicably stupid, testosterone fueled things that they later regret. People also grow as human beings. Even if the story is 100% true (especially if alcohol was involved) his potential suitability as a judge should not be contingent on something he did over two thirds of his life ago at a party. This whole movement of trying to ruin people for ever making a single error is preposterous. If we held everyone accountable for every dumb thing their did in their teens no one would ever be accepted for any job ever.

Now if on the other hand we get other stories of the same behavior spanning multiple years and it shows a pattern of behavior, that's a different story.
---

Golden Road posted...

It shouldn't scare you unless you've done something bad.

In a perfect world, you would be correct.

A shame we don't actually live in that world.


---

man101 posted...

But teenage guys do inexplicably stupid, testosterone fueled things that they later regret. People also grow as human beings.

I can agree to that and if he were being a vice president of a company or something I think something he did so long ago could be looked over. As a judge on the highest court in the land until death or retirement. I can't trust the judgement of a guy who would do this. There are plenty of people who don't rape girls at 17 we can pick from.
---

slacker03150 posted...

man101 posted...

But teenage guys do inexplicably stupid, testosterone fueled things that they later regret. People also grow as human beings.

I can agree to that and if he were being a vice president of a company or something I think something he did so long ago could be looked over. As a judge on the highest court in the land until death or retirement. I can't trust the judgement of a guy who would do this. There are plenty of people who don't rape girls at 17 we can pick from.

I suppose that's a fair argument, though I still say even some of the most productive, good people on Earth were still capable of being horrific assholes as drunken teenagers. Now I don't think he should sit on the bench for any number of other reasons. Just that if that were the only claim against him I wouldn't be terribly bothered by it. Especially if it were the only such instance and he owned up to it. (Which I know he has not)
---

Oh look another topic where people on PotD don't understand why coming forward with accusations of sexual crimes is stigmatized
---

man101 posted...

I'm not in any way a Kavanaugh supporter but I do think it's ridiculous to try to destroy someone's career over something they did when they were 16. (Allegedly this took place during the summer before his Junior year so I'm assuming that's how old he was.) Yes it does sound aggressive and stupid and he should definitely have to do something to try to remedy his actions. But teenage guys do inexplicably stupid, testosterone fueled things that they later regret. People also grow as human beings. Even if the story is 100% true (especially if alcohol was involved) his potential suitability as a judge should not be contingent on something he did over two thirds of his life ago at a party. This whole movement of trying to ruin people for ever making a single error is preposterous. If we held everyone accountable for every dumb thing their did in their teens no one would ever be accepted for any job ever.

Now if on the other hand we get other stories of the same behavior spanning multiple years and it shows a pattern of behavior, that's a different story.

Again, nobody is discussing removing him from the federal bench. Its a discussion about getting a promotion to a lifetime appointment.

And yes most teens do stupid stuff. Mine include minor theft, vandalism, and drug use. It doesnt include attempted rape. If you think the first three are in the same category as the last one, then I dont know what to tell you.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

I still think it's an absolute miracle that Chris Hardwick got his job back at AMC. But the false allegations still turned a ton of people against him. 26 people quit when he got hired, because they were so "upset" he got his job back. You know, for being innocent of all allegations.

Murder a human being. Serve your debt to society, rejoin society. I don't condone sexual assault, but how did that suddenly become a crime where "you'll literally never work again" became the norm?
---

Quick question for you, TC, that might put this in perspective.

Were you just as skeptical of the people coming forward to allege sexual abuse committed by the Catholic priests 30, 40, sometimes 50+ years ago? Did you think it was odd that all of them started coming forwards at the same time (and not, y'know, people finally deciding to come to terms with a horrible past because it kept popping up in the news)? Were they also sitting on these allegations for decades, waiting until "the perfect time" to maximize the damage?

Or is this different somehow?

GreenKnight127 posted...

A man is innocent until proven guilty afterall....right? Due process IS a constitutional right.....right?

Sure, and no one's suggesting we lock up Kavanaugh without an investigation and trial.

Here's the thing, though - that constitutional right? That's meant to preserve your freedom from incarceration - nothing else. Kavanaugh isn't constitutionally entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court and there's no moral obligation that we have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he's guilty before saying "Wait, whoa, maybe we should look into this a bit more". It's the same way Bill Cosby's various sponsors could drop him long before he was ever charged with or convicted of anything.

A lot of people get confused by this - they assume that "innocent until proven guilty" is a universal standard (it's not, not even within the legal system - civil law, for instance, usually operates off of "balance of probabilities", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt") and that it means that you are free from all consequence until a criminal conviction is obtained. Again, even restricting ourselves to the criminal system, this is not the case - if you're accused of murder, for instance, you're probably going to be spending all of your time before and during the trial behind bars, even though you haven't been convicted of anything yet. You'll also probably lose your job. People generally accept that this is a reasonable reaction, rather than letting accused murderers wander freely until the court gets around to trying their case.

This is all without even touching on the fact that spurious allegations are rare in criminal cases (<10%) and even rarer in sexual assault allegations (<5%).

And here we're talking about something that should have an even higher standard - a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful offices in the country. There's nothing incongruous or wrong with saying "You have to prove your innocence before we reward you with this position" in this instance. And, again, there's nothing wrong with saying "Let's pause this confirmation until we have the full story and can decide with the full set of facts in front of us." After all, there's no timetable for when the seat has to be filled beyond the one artificially set by the Republicans in the senate. And pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for the Senators who are crying soft tears while screaming about delay tactics and abuse of process, with the hope of getting their nominee confirmed a few months before an election, when those exact same senators not two years ago let Scalia's seat sit empty for almost a full year, without even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland, with the excuse that "the American people should get to decide on this".
---

man101 posted...

I suppose that's a fair argument, though I still say even some of the most productive, good people on Earth were still capable of being horrific assholes as drunken teenagers. Now I don't think he should sit on the bench for any number of other reasons. Just that if that were the only claim against him I wouldn't be terribly bothered by it.

Maybe it's just me, but I think "no attempted rapists on the Supreme Court" isn't an overly-burdensome qualification.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Golden Road posted...

It shouldn't scare you unless you've done something bad.

In a perfect world, you would be correct.

A shame we don't actually live in that world.

Can you name me a powerful political figure who was brought down by sexual assault allegations that were later found to be spurious? Because all of the politicians I can think of that had these sorts of allegations made against them either turned out to be true (Bill Clinton, Tim Murphy, Anthony Weiner, Joe Barton, and Al Franken, to list just a few) or had an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting that conclusion, even if there was never a conclusive answer (Donald Trump, Roy Moore, John Conyers Jr., Pat Meehan).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Quick question for you, TC, that might put this in perspective.

Were you just as skeptical of the people coming forward to allege sexual abuse committed by the Catholic priests 30, 40, sometimes 50+ years ago? Did you think it was odd that all of them started coming forwards at the same time (and not, y'know, people finally deciding to come to terms with a horrible past because it kept popping up in the news)? Were they also sitting on these allegations for decades, waiting until "the perfect time" to maximize the damage?

Or is this different somehow?

Catholic priests molesting young boys is definitely different. Do we really need to have this conversation? lol

The #MeToo movement is (usually) adult women coming forward with their stories of a man (always multiple years ago, sometimes decades) harassing them, making them feel uncomfortable, etc. Very seldom is it actual cases of rape/assault. And when it does happen, the woman was almost always in college at the time or older. She was an adult when it happened. Someone who could stand up for themselves if they chose to. Someone who could easily go to the police, or photograph bruises and blood on their bodies the next morning on their cellphones to take into evidence. Steps could have been taken. And they often aren't. There is no evidence. Just her verbal testimony. And it's always some journalist that gets her statement before the authorities. Shady as hell.

So a lot of it just doesn't add up.

Catholic priests, however......molest/rape CHILDREN. Oftentimes decades and decades ago before there was even internet, cellphones, social media, etc. Religion had all the protection in the community. "Priests can do no wrong!" To question the morality of your minister is blasphemy. And some of the kids were so young....they might have not even recognized what exactly was happening to them. Priests used this position of authority and power to do what they did. So a lot of the victims didn't come forward until they were old enough to recognize what exactly happened to them and how they weren't the only ones who got "weird massages from Father Johnson every Sunday night". So they eventually start coming forward.

So to sum it up, the biggest difference in choosing to come forward years and years later is that Catholic priests victimized children. The #MeToo movement, in general, is almost always adult women.
---

The other problem with these allegations is that they supposedly occurred when he was a minor, which raises a plethora of issues from the fact that people change to the greater legal protections minors receive because the system recognizes that minors aren't fully culpable for their actions and change over time. That's not counting that memory can be highly unreliable over long spans of time.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Golden Road posted...

It shouldn't scare you unless you've done something bad.

In a perfect world, you would be correct.

A shame we don't actually live in that world.

This so hard. We live in an age where baseless accusations routinely result in significant hardship for men, whether it's a girl claiming that her sex partners raped her because she wants her crush to be sympathetic, an entire lacrosse team being accused of rape, etc. That's in addition the Billie Jeans of the world making allegations against celebs.

darkknight109 posted...

Can you name me a powerful political figure who was brought down by sexual assault allegations that were later found to be spurious?

Moving the goalposts, since he talks about it scaring him as an individual. And while the rich and powerful are fine no matter what, it's the people at *lower* positions -- bosses, managers, and even college students -- who actually have their lives ruined.

darkknight109 posted...

had an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting that conclusion, even if there was never a conclusive answer (Donald Trump

...based on what, the number of accusations? I guess I missed when the plural form of "accusation" became "evidence." (And I was also going to highlight the Roy Moore thing, but I haven't followed it as closely although, last I checked, the most serious of allegations (groping a 14 y/o in a car, etc) was still a he-said-she-said.)
---

All this stuff... this is why Im becoming more and more wary about even getting involved with women.
---

^
---

It's all nonsense. She doesn't want him in SCOTUS because she thinks Brett is gonna take away the ability for females to kill humans in early stages of development. So she manufactured nonsense. The #metoo movement has been horrible for actual victims of abuse. My immediate reaction is to disbelieve accusations, which is just as bad as automatically believing them.

It shouldn't scare you unless you've done something bad.

This is slave mentality right here.
---

I swear the whole boys will be boys bullshit always applies to some white dudes and conservatives would lose their damn minds if they heard about some minority kid doing the same thing
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

I still think it's an absolute miracle that Chris Hardwick got his job back at AMC. But the false allegations still turned a ton of people against him. 26 people quit when he got hired, because they were so "upset" he got his job back. You know, for being innocent of all allegations.

I missed this part, but Hardwick was never "found innocent." And whether or not he did it, the people who walked -- and who knew him -- certainly believed he was guilty. While I'm kinda split on the situation, when a company doesn't feel that there's sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and chooses to reinstate somebody you believe did that thing, choosing to quit is completely justified. (Although if it was just a stunt where they thought they'd be brought back and he'd be forced out, I'd feel differently.)
---

Even if the Hardwick allegations are 100% true that just makes him a bad boyfriend

Last I checked people dont get fired for that
---

The whole claim seems pretty tenuous, honestly. From 30 years ago, not mentioned at all until 2012 (in private) and just now publicly. It could be legit, and deserves investigation, but on its face it definitely seems sketchy.

But I don't even care anymore. Mitch McConnell played every cheap, dirty trick in the book to steal a Supreme Court nomination, holding it up for 11 months without even giving a hearing so "the voters can decide" and now is rushing his ass off to push this one through in mere weeks because he knows the voters are about to decide to take away his party's majority.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/opinions/gop-cant-handle-the-truth-on-kavanagh-begala/index.html

The Republicans' blockade of Garland was without precedents and without conscience. They did it because they could. And now the same folks who delayed Garland forever are rushing to a vote on Kavanaugh for the same reason: pure power politics.
While Garland's only sin was to be nominated by President Obama, Kavanaugh has been accused by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) of misleading the Senate while under oath. And, of course, even more troubling, he has been accused by Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist, of sexual assault. And yet the Republicans refuse to ask the FBI to investigate her allegations.
The GOP would rather get the confirmation right away than get it right. The folks who said the Senate shouldn't even hold a hearing for Judge Garland during an election year are pushing a vote just weeks before an election.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Mitch.

So yeah, fuck it. I don't even care how legit or not the claim even is at this point. It's time to fight back. If Obama's nomination hadn't been stolen, we wouldn't even be in a situation where Anthony Kennedy's replacement could tilt the court 5-4 in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.
If this was Garland facing this accusation, the GOP Congress would've already turned the whole thing into a political side show w/ hearings and investigative committees. But because it's Trump's pick, they'll do all they can to avoid even a basic FBI investigation.

GreenKnight127 posted...

The #MeToo movement is (usually) adult women coming forward with their stories of a man (always multiple years ago, sometimes decades) harassing them, making them feel uncomfortable, etc.

Sure, but just like not all violent crimes are murder, not all sex crimes are rape.

And, in this particular case, the allegation is absolutely an attempted rape. Groping a girl and trying to tear off her bathing suit is not "making her feel uncomfortable."

GreenKnight127 posted...

And when it does happen, the woman was almost always in college at the time or older. She was an adult when it happened.

So? What does that mean?

That an adult can't get raped? Obviously, that's false. That an adult can tell someone? Well, so could a kid.

"But wait!", you say, "The kid was being abused by someone in a position of power! Someone who could intimidate them!" And that's true. Thing is, that's also true for most of the women accusing men in positions of power.

Which segues nicely into my next point...

GreenKnight127 posted...

Someone who could stand up for themselves if they chose to.

So it's not the attacker's fault for being a rapist, but the victim's fault for not "standing up for themselves"? For not having the presence of mind - in the aftermath of being the victim of a crime - to preserve evidence like some kind of CSI investigator? That's kind of sick, dude.

As to why they don't come forward, well, look what happened in this case. The woman accusing Kavanaugh has been doxxed by various conservative communities and has been subject to a torrent of abuse, including death threats. She's been forced to leave her home and live apart from her children. And that's in *today's* environment, when it's easier than ever for an accuser to find victim's support and people who will take her allegations seriously. Imagine what would happen if she - then a high-school student - had done this back when it first happened in the 80's.

Or don't and just read this instead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.e91576c37e5d

It's an account of a girl who was raped by two students during high school, immediately reported the crime and got a rape kit test taken (with the rape kit matching the DNA of one of the two students she had accused). Her high school turned against her, which included a graffiti campaign, and despite the positive DNA match her case was dropped by a grand jury (which was dropping about half the rape cases brought forward at the time, including ones with DNA matches and confessions from the perpetrators).

To borrow PO's statement, in a perfect world every rape allegation would be taken seriously and no one would pass judgement one way or another until the facts were known. But we don't live in that world. Acknowledging that, it's understandable why victims of sex crimes - whether they were children or adults at the time of said crime - feel it's not worth the hassle of coming forward, especially if their abuser was or is in a position of power.
---

Zeus posted...

The other problem with these allegations is that they supposedly occurred when he was a minor, which raises a plethora of issues from the fact that people change to the greater legal protections minors receive because the system recognizes that minors aren't fully culpable for their actions and change over time.

In most cases, applications can be made for minors to be charged as adults.

But you're missing the point - no one is talking about Kavanaugh being charged with anything. This isn't about whether Kavanaugh is legally culpable for his actions; it's about whether he, as a 17 year old, committed the action he is being accused of (groping and attempting to forcibly strip an underage girl) and whether that should be sufficient grounds to deny him appointment to the Supreme Court.

His legal status at the time has absolutely no bearing on rendering that judgement.

Zeus posted...

That's not counting that memory can be highly unreliable over long spans of time.

Of course it can. That's why all the Democrats - and why the accuser herself - are calling for the FBI to investigate and for additional witnesses to be called. After all, if there was a party that she and/or Kavanaugh attended, an investigation would be able to identify potential corroborating witnesses and confirm date and/or time (Kavanaugh has alleged that not only did the incident not occur, but that he never attended a party like the one his accuser describes, which should be easy enough to confirm or disprove - if no one can place him at any party in the area, the allegations look a lot more unlikely). It's crazy that the Republicans are insisting that this woman must not be remembering things correctly while refusing to ask the FBI to confirm that, yes, she really was mistaken.

I'll ask the same question of you I asked of the TC - are you OK with people accusing Catholic priests of molesting them as children, or are you similarly leery about that? Because those allegations are also frequently decades old and the memories of then-children are even more unreliable than adults. If you're supportive of the people making those allegations, this shouldn't be any different, unless your motives are political in nature.

Zeus posted...

We live in an age where baseless accusations routinely result in significant hardship for men

So let's see a few examples. Better yet, let's see some analysis that this is a widespread problem, because we have plenty of evidence that the inverse - that high-profile men have gotten away with sexual abuse for years and not been called to task for it - is a major problem, but I've yet to see any analysis suggesting that women are, en masse, falsely accusing men of sexual assault purely for their own gain.
---

Zeus posted...

Moving the goalposts, since he talks about it scaring him as an individual.

Is it? Because I could have sworn the opening fucking sentence of his OP was "Obviously talking about the Kavanaugh story."

Zeus posted...

And while the rich and powerful are fine no matter what, it's the people at *lower* positions -- bosses, managers, and even college students -- who actually have their lives ruined.

I'll pause at this juncture to remind everyone that the false accusation rate for rape is lower than that of other violent crimes.

Zeus posted...

...based on what, the number of accusations?

That and the fact that he admitted to some of the accusations (specifically walking in on women in the Miss Universe pageant while they were changing - he stated in an interview that being the owner meant he could "get away with things like that").

He's been accused by 19 different women of sexual misconduct spanning nearly 30 years, and that's not even counting his consensual sexual escapades, like his numerous affairs and dalliances with porn stars. Some of those allegations were settled out of court, an unusual move for a man who loves to bury people in litigation. That's an awful lot of smoke for the accusations to all be pure fabrications.

Zeus posted...

And I was also going to highlight the Roy Moore thing, but I haven't followed it as closely

Like Trump, there's lots of corroborating details. For instance, there were nine separate women accusing him, he was banned from a mall because he kept hitting on the underage staff, his signature was in one of the accusers yearbooks, he changed his story (originally claiming he did know two of his accusers, then later saying he'd never met them, despite the aforementioned yearbook signature) and a police officer was told to watch for Moore at school athletic events and keep him away from the cheerleaders.

Again, it may not be a smoking gun and it may not be enough for a criminal conviction, but it's more than enough to show that this guy had a sexual attraction to underage girls and he wasn't afraid to act on it. In my eyes, that's more than enough to disqualify him from a political posting.
---

darkknight109 posted...

And, in this particular case, the allegation is absolutely an attempted rape. Groping a girl and trying to tear off her bathing suit is not "making her feel uncomfortable."

That sounds like sexual assault, not "absolutely an attempted rape"

darkknight109 posted...

But you're missing the point - no one is talking about Kavanaugh being charged with anything. This isn't about whether Kavanaugh is legally culpable for his actions; it's about whether he, as a 17 year old, committed the action he is being accused of (groping and attempting to forcibly strip an underage girl) and whether that should be sufficient grounds to deny him appointment to the Supreme Court.

His legal status at the time has absolutely no bearing on rendering that judgement.

No, it ABSOLUTELY has a direct bearing because juvenile records are deliberately sealed to give youths a fresh start at adulthood. And had this actually gone to court at the time, he'd have some measure of protection -- albeit a weak one that could still be violated.

darkknight109 posted...

Of course it can. That's why all the Democrats - and why the accuser herself - are calling for the FBI to investigate and for additional witnesses to be called. After all, if there was a party that she and/or Kavanaugh attended, an investigation would be able to identify potential corroborating witnesses and confirm date and/or time (Kavanaugh has alleged that not only did the incident not occur, but that he never attended a party like the one his accuser describes, which should be easy enough to confirm or disprove - if no one can place him at any party in the area, the allegations look a lot more unlikely). It's crazy that the Republicans are insisting that this woman must not be remembering things correctly while refusing to ask the FBI to confirm that, yes, she really was mistaken.

....except, given that she apparently doesn't even remember where this party happened, there's really not much for the FBI to actually look into. The reality is that it's an absurdly transparent stall tactic to delay the confirmation. The whole story is unbelievably flaky and seems designed to derail the hearings in the hopes that Democrats can get a majority then stall the clock for at least the next two years -- possibly six, if Trump gets re-elected.

darkknight109 posted...

I'll ask the same question of you I asked of the TC - are you OK with people accusing Catholic priests of molesting them as children, or are you similarly leery about that? Because those allegations are also frequently decades old and the memories of then-children are even more unreliable than adults. If you're supportive of the people making those allegations, this shouldn't be any different, unless your motives are political in nature.

First off, I'm absolutely leery in cases like those *but* there are many important key differences that you're glossing over in your attempt to conflate the two. The problem with the Catholic church is that allegations were made AT THE TIME and the church was complicit in concealing the crimes and resolving the matter -- something that even happened within areas where I've lived. But sure, keep pretending that they're *exactly* the same.
---

darkknight109, you are assuming a lot about me. Not a good idea. If you want to know how I feel about something, just ask. Don't assume.

In case you misinterpreted it somehow, I believe all rapists are pieces of human shit who should face the full extent of the law.

However, what I am also saying is that due process is a thing and men shouldn't be seen as guilty by default just because some woman said something happened years ago. It shouldn't be some fucking race for the guy to try and clear his name. No. SHE needs to prove a rape/assault/harassment occurred.

But for some strange reason, all the rules have been flipped around. The media reports on ALLEGATIONS as though they are confirmed fact. And just an allegation alone can tarnish a man's reputation for life, because people have embrace the mentality of "There wouldn't be smoke without a fire."

And I have a huuuuuuuuuuuuge problem with that.

It is also absurd to think it's okay for a woman to wait YEARS to come forward about such a thing. Yes, some girls are shamed for it. Some girls have a reputation of sleeping around and making terrible decisions, so when girls like that ARE raped, of course the community is gunna grumble and respond with doubt and criticism. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?

I personally know a girl who got 7 different guys fired by making false rape claims against them. She did this because they dated her and got "too clingy". You know, because breaking up with someone isn't good enough. She needs to permanently ruin their lives as well. Thankfully, the 8th potential guy she tried to pull this shit on was smart enough to have text evidence to prove that she was lying to destroy men's lives. It all got turned around on her and she got fired. But this was after already ruining 7 totally innocent men's lives. Just by making ALLEGATIONS against them.

That is a LOT of power for a woman to have.
---

darkknight109 posted...

So let's see a few examples. Better yet, let's see some analysis that this is a widespread problem, because we have plenty of evidence that the inverse - that high-profile men have gotten away with sexual abuse for years and not been called to task for it - is a major problem, but I've yet to see any analysis suggesting that women are, en masse, falsely accusing men of sexual assault purely for their own gain.

I literally just posted several examples. Most of them were stories Ducky either covered or referenced as well.

darkknight109 posted...

Is it? Because I could have sworn the opening fucking sentence of his OP was "Obviously talking about the Kavanaugh story."

...and then if you kept reading, you'd see that he's specifically referring to a trend by the point in his post that he mentions that and, more importantly, that the responses to it were treating it as if he was commenting on being afraid himself. And, let's be perfectly honest, if you're a male living in America you *should* be afraid of wrongful accusations because you could lose everything long before you have a chance to vindicate yourself.

darkknight109 posted...

I'll pause at this juncture to remind everyone that the false accusation rate for rape is lower than that of other violent crimes.

I'll pause here to let you offer evidence to that effect.

darkknight109 posted...

That and the fact that he admitted to some of the accusations (specifically walking in on women in the Miss Universe pageant while they were changing - he stated in an interview that being the owner meant he could "get away with things like that").

It's a pretty huge leap from childish bad behavior to outright assault.

darkknight109 posted...

He's been accused by 19 different women of sexual misconduct spanning nearly 30 years, and that's not even counting his consensual sexual escapades, like his numerous affairs and dalliances with porn stars. Some of those allegations were settled out of court, an unusual move for a man who loves to bury people in litigation. That's an awful lot of smoke for the accusations to all be pure fabrications.

You're all over the map. If you're talking about sexual assault, why would you even "count his consensual sexual escapades"? Consensual sex is the opposite of assault. The fact that somebody has consensual sex doesn't make them more likely to assault or rape somebody. Otherwise you're coming back to the same point -- that an accusation is in itself evidence, which is patently ridiculous.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Like Trump, there's lots of corroborating details. For instance, there were nine separate women accusing him, he was banned from a mall because he kept hitting on the underage staff, his signature was in one of the accusers yearbooks, and an officer was told to watch for Moore at school athletic events and keep him away from the cheerleaders.

Again, it may not be a smoking gun and it may not be enough for a criminal conviction, but it's more than enough to show that this guy had a sexual attraction to underage girls and he wasn't afraid to act on it. In my eyes, that's more than enough to disqualify him from a political posting.

The problem with your allegations is that they occurred *while* he was younger and single -- a fact that people purposefully obscured here and other places when the story first broke to make it seem as egregious as possible. More importantly, his actions *stopped* when he married a younger woman. This strongly suggests that this was never just some attraction to under-age girls, but a somewhat-less-than-socially-acceptable attempt to look for a wife.
---

Zeus posted...

That sounds like sexual assault, not "absolutely an attempted rape"

I don't think someone who's willing to forcibly strip a girl of her bathing suit while silencing her screams is intending to stop there, but call it what you like. Either way, I'd say that if events transpired as she claimed, that's more than enough to disqualify someone from judgeship.

Again, "no sexual criminals on the Supreme Court" doesn't seem like too high a bar to set.

Zeus posted...

No, it ABSOLUTELY has a direct bearing because juvenile records are deliberately sealed to give youths a fresh start at adulthood. And had this actually gone to court at the time, he'd have some measure of protection -- albeit a weak one that could still be violated.

Had it actually gone to court at the time, he almost assuredly would never have gotten as far as he did. Even had the records been sealed, the FBI would still have access to them and would have reported them to the White House when he first started working for them during the Bush administration, which very likely would have meant they would not have hired him.

Zeus posted...

....except, given that she apparently doesn't even remember where this party happened, there's really not much for the FBI to actually look into.

So ask Mark Judge - Ford claimed he was at the party. If he insists it didn't happen, start asking some of the other alumni. More than 1,000 of them just signed a letter of support for Ford - you think some of them might know of the party in question and be able to recall when/where it happened and whether Kavanaugh attended? Hell, Ed Whelan - a friend of Kavanaugh's - has already come forward and said where he believes the party was held.

Again, this is why you have the FBI start asking questions. You can say "Well, they clearly won't be able to find anything," but you don't know that until they've made the attempt. And it's not like this sort of thing isn't done - Clarence Thomas was subject to the exact same sort of investigation during his confirmation, over very similar allegations.
---

Zeus posted...

The reality is that it's an absurdly transparent stall tactic to delay the confirmation. The whole story is unbelievably flaky and seems designed to derail the hearings in the hopes that Democrats can get a majority then stall the clock for at least the next two years -- possibly six, if Trump gets re-elected.

I'd be mortified at such a suggestion if the Republicans hadn't pulled the exact same shit two years ago, with far less justification, refusing to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland in the hopes that Trump would win the presidency and the Republicans would keep the senate (because "the American people deserve to have a voice", according to Mitch McConnel, who is now trying his damndest to make sure he gets this done quickly lest they choose someone other than him this time). Several Republican senators even went on record as saying that, in the event Hillary won, they would categorically reject her nominees too and allow the Supreme Court to continue with just eight justices until such time as a Republican was restored to the White House.

Of course the Democrats are trying to delay the hearing - that much is obvious. And yes, this is shitty politics that is sabotoging what is supposed to be a non-partisan process and fuck Mitch McConnel in his flaccid asshole for inviting this shitshow by spending the better part of the last decade (and most of 2016 specifically) hyper-politicizing the judiciary nomination process, but the genie is very much outside the bottle now, so we have to deal with where we are. Point is, there is enough of a case here to merit that delay. Brett Kavanaugh is not "owed" a Supreme Court seat, nor is Trump or the Republicans "owed" the ability to confirm the nominee of their choice if s/he is unfit for said nomination any more than Obama was "owed" the ability to confirm his nominees. If the hearing is delayed and the Republicans do lose their senate majority, that is the will of the people - democracy in action. I'm sure Kavanaugh and Garland can commiserate over drinks if that happens, and then maybe the politicians will actually fix this dumb-as-dogshit procedure they've spent the last ten years fucking into oblivion (but somehow I doubt it).

Zeus posted...

The problem with the Catholic church is that allegations were made AT THE TIME and the church was complicit in concealing the crimes and resolving the matter

So why didn't the kids and/or their parents go to the media? Or their elected officials? Or the police? If they'd been loud enough with it, surely *somebody* would have listened.

Or are we only allowed to ask those questions when it happens to an adult woman?
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

However, what I am also saying is that due process is a thing and men shouldn't be seen as guilty by default just because some woman said something happened years ago. It shouldn't be some fucking race for the guy to try and clear his name. No. SHE needs to prove a rape/assault/harassment occurred.

I'm sorry, "she" needs to prove this occurred?

Fucking why? She's not an investigator. She has absolutely no tools or authority to do that, and even if she did the results wouldn't be considered admissible because of her glaring conflict of interest. That's the entire reason why we have investigative bodies - like the FBI - in the first place, and it's exactly why she and the Democrats are asking for an investigation to take place.

Again, you're conflating standards here. If you're putting the guy behind bars, yeah, you need to prove that the rape happened. But that's not what we're talking about here. Again, Kavanaugh is not owed anything in this process - not the nomination, not a fair-and-speedy trial, nothing. The senators could vote him down because they don't like his tie, that's their right.

In that case, I am not particularly bothered by the idea of Kavanaugh's nomination being denied because there is a credible allegation of sexual misconduct, regardless of whether or not it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially true given the Republicans' recalcitrance to actually due their job and exercise some investigative muscle into the situation. They could subpoena Mark Judge or ask the FBI to investigate further, but they're not. Not because the allegations lack substance, of course, but for nakedly political reasons - if they don't confirm Kavanaugh now (or, worse, if it turns out he *did* try to rape Ford and they have to reject his nomination), they risk losing the senate and, with it, the ability to nominate and confirm a justice of their choice. See above for exactly how much of a shit I give about that particular predicament - the Republicans made this bed of shit, they can fucking well sleep in it.

The senate is supposed to put the goodwill of the country over political affiliation. Ensuring that they're not giving a rapist a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is absolutely part of their job description, so the argument that it's politically untenable to them doesn't fly with me. And I'd be saying the exact same thing if it was a Democrat nominee being vetted by a Democratic senate just before an election.

GreenKnight127 posted...

But for some strange reason, all the rules have been flipped around. The media reports on ALLEGATIONS as though they are confirmed fact.

They do that with all crimes, though. "Woman accused of murdering husband goes on trial tomorrow", "Three teenagers charged with burglary after home invasion gone wrong", so on and so forth.

This is not anything unique to sex crimes. If you want to switch to a system like exists in some European countries, where the media are denied the right to report a suspect's name unless they have been convicted, so be it, but that's not the system the US operates under today (and, given how much some sects of the population - conservatives especially - would view such a system as "focusing on the rights of the criminals instead of the rights of the victims", I'm skeptical you'd ever be able to pass such a system into law).
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

It is also absurd to think it's okay for a woman to wait YEARS to come forward about such a thing.

Again, in a perfect world women would feel safe to come forward right away, but we very much do not live in that world. Hell, you give an excellent reason why in your next few sentences:

GreenKnight127 posted...

Some girls have a reputation of sleeping around and making terrible decisions, so when girls like that ARE raped, of course the community is gunna grumble and respond with doubt and criticism. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?

So let's see if I have this straight - it's OK to doubt and criticize women with an active sex life for being raped, because apparently having a lot of sex is "crying wolf"? Dude, what the fuck.

Shit like this is exactly why women don't feel like they can come forward - because some [censored] on the internet will say "Oh please - she slept with five guys in the last two years, you expect me to believe that she won't automatically consent to every man who wants to have sex with her?"

GreenKnight127 posted...

That is a LOT of power for a woman to have.

You understand men have the power to make false allegations too, right?

No reason why one of her ex-boyfriends couldn't claim that she pressured him into sex. Or that she was stealing office supplies from the break room. Or something similar.

Yeah, false allegations are shitty and that's true regardless of who the accuser is or what crime they're accusing someone of. But this is not just an issue with women and to suggest otherwise is ignorant. As I've mentioned several times in this topic, the false accusation rate for sexual abuse is lower than other violent crimes - the overwhelming majority of people who come forward with those claims are telling the truth. So if you want to talk about people ruining other people's lives with false accusations, maybe start with those other crimes first - you'll have more of an impact.
---

what I don't like is how you can have school children breaking the bones of other school children and they can just walk it off.... but you look at a girls butt and you're on thin ice for the next 50 years
---

Zeus posted...

I literally just posted several examples.

"a girl claiming that her sex partners raped her because she wants her crush to be sympathetic" and "an entire lacrosse team being accused of rape" are not examples, they are hypotheticals, and I have no idea who "Ducky" is. Try again.

Zeus posted...

...and then if you kept reading, you'd see that he's specifically referring to a trend by the point in his post that he mentions that and, more importantly, that the responses to it were treating it as if he was commenting on being afraid himself

And if you'd actually bothered to read the post you carefully excised my quote from, you'd see that I was talking specifically about Kavanaugh for pretty much the entirety of it.

Zeus posted...

And, let's be perfectly honest, if you're a male living in America you *should* be afraid of wrongful accusations because you could lose everything long before you have a chance to vindicate yourself.

You should also be afraid because you could be shot dead by a lunatic with a gun. Personally I'd be more worried about that one - it's the much more likely of those two hypotheticals.

Zeus posted...

I'll pause here to let you offer evidence to that effect.

Here's an article with some nicely cited sources:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/false-sexual-violence-assault-rape-allegations-truth-rare-international-day-for-the-elimination-of-a8077876.html

Zeus posted...

It's a pretty huge leap from childish bad behavior to outright assault.

If you think that constitutes "childish bad behaviour", I'll invite you to go to your nearest local pool (or, if you're really feeling adventurous, high school) and march unannounced into the women's change room. Somehow I don't think the police will agree with your definition.

Moreover, I never said that Trump was guilty of violent sexual assault - in fact, many of the names I listed were not. Not all sex crimes are rape.

Zeus posted...

You're all over the map. If you're talking about sexual assault, why would you even "count his consensual sexual escapades"?

It points to his proclivity to think with his dick and generally be a lying, slimy scumbag. Yes, on their own they prove nothing and if all Trump was accused of was committing adultery with multiple porn stars, that just makes him a sack of shit rather than a criminal. But they fit into a pattern of behaviour that is consistent with what he's being accused of, which is skirting (and occasionally going over) the line of acceptable sexual behaviour.

Zeus posted...

The problem with your allegations is that they occurred *while* he was younger and single

Because that makes it *so* much more defensible.

By the way, your definition of "young" is apparently 31 (when he was accused of going after a 16-year-old") and 32 (when he went after the 14-year-old). If you're letting people in their 30s off the hook for sexual passes at someone who is two years under the age of consent (because they're apparently still "young and restless" in their fourth decade of life, or something), I don't know what to tell you.
---

darkknight109 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

However, what I am also saying is that due process is a thing and men shouldn't be seen as guilty by default just because some woman said something happened years ago. It shouldn't be some fucking race for the guy to try and clear his name. No. SHE needs to prove a rape/assault/harassment occurred.

I'm sorry, "she" needs to prove this occurred?

Fucking why? She's not an investigator. She has absolutely no tools or authority to do that, and even if she did the results wouldn't be considered admissible because of her glaring conflict of interest. That's the entire reason why we have investigative bodies - like the FBI - in the first place, and it's exactly why she and the Democrats are asking for an investigation to take place.

Again, you're conflating standards here. If you're putting the guy behind bars, yeah, you need to prove that the rape happened. But that's not what we're talking about here. Again, Kavanaugh is not owed anything in this process - not the nomination, not a fair-and-speedy trial, nothing. The senators could vote him down because they don't like his tie, that's their right.

Women in today's society DO need to prove a rape/assault/harassment occurred. Does that concept blow your mind or something? How else would a woman expect law enforcement to magically find evidence against the man to result in a conviction unless she brings something forward beyond a verbal testimony?

In the case of Kavanaugh, since this incident happened almost 35 freakin' YEARS ago....what the hell does she expect the FBI to "investigate" exactly? You can get all the sworn statements you want from people who might have been around at the time, but that was a loooooong ass time ago. Those people are going to have fuzzy memories and be totally different people now than they were then. Unless someone's got a torn swimsuit with Kavanaugh's fingerprints on it....I don't know what the hell people are expecting to find that could damn him. Other than the damn allegations alone. Which brings me back to my initial point: the destruction of a man from allegations alone.

I could go into a police station right now and claim that my neighbor is a pedophile. The first question the cops are going to ask is, "Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Why would you think that your neighbor is a pedophile?"

And at that moment.......everything stops. Unless I have something concrete to offer them, the chances of them getting a warrant to investigate or arrest my neighbor are slim to none. Sure, they might be able to go over and question him, but he could just deny it. That's assuming the cops don't have anything else better to do and decide to go over and question him at all. And my allegations of him being a pedophile shouldn't be able to legally damn him in any way. Should he be fired from his job because someone made allegations about him? Should his company fire him simply because it "looks bad", even if my accusation is a complete lie simply because I was upset he mowed over my rose bushes?

In 2018, the game has changed. Women could easily get evidence to support a claim of abuse. Cell phones are everywhere. Social media can make tracking down witnesses very easy. So many streets, businesses, and intersections have cameras. If some guy does something terrible to a woman, there can be evidence to support it.

If a woman wakes up in a frat house, and believes she might have been raped.......she could easily take pictures of bruises or questionable marks on her body the next morning in the bathroom. She could easily walk into a doctor's office and get swabs for possible DNA evidence. Build a case. Value your life. Seek justice.
---

Zeus posted...

The problem with your allegations is that they occurred *while* he was younger and single -- a fact that people purposefully obscured here and other places when the story first broke to make it seem as egregious as possible. More importantly, his actions *stopped* when he married a younger woman. This strongly suggests that this was never just some attraction to under-age girls, but a somewhat-less-than-socially-acceptable attempt to look for a wife.

you always talk about protecting predators, am i the only person noticing, ok?
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Women in today's society DO need to prove a rape/assault/harassment occurred. Does that concept blow your mind or something? How else would a woman expect law enforcement to magically find evidence against the man to result in a conviction unless she brings something forward beyond a verbal testimony?

Because that's how things usually work?

You don't walk into the police station and say "I was raped! Here's several swabs I took of myself, witness statements from my neighbours, security camera footage taken from the gas station down the street that shows the suspect leaving my house, and an itemized history of rapes in the neighbourhood to help zero in on the culprit."

You walk in and say, "I was raped" and the cops take it from there.

GreenKnight127 posted...

In the case of Kavanaugh, since this incident happened almost 35 freakin' YEARS ago....what the hell does she expect the FBI to "investigate" exactly?

Dunno how many times you want me to say this, but no one's talking about a criminal trial here. No one is saying Kavanaugh has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it looks likely that he committed the action he is being accused of, that's probably good enough for the senate.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Unless someone's got a torn swimsuit with Kavanaugh's fingerprints on it....I don't know what the hell people are expecting to find that could damn him.

So, you know that criminal cases don't necessarily require physical evidence, right? Like, it's possible to get a conviction based on testimony alone?

I mean, think about it - rape would be pretty difficult to prosecute if that wasn't the case. All the guy has to say is "Yeah, we had sex, and it was pretty rough but it was consensual" and that almost completely invalidates any physical evidence of the crime.

GreenKnight127 posted...

I could go into a police station right now and claim that my neighbor is a pedophile. The first question the cops are going to ask is, "Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Why would you think that your neighbor is a pedophile?"

In other words, the cops are going to investigate, starting by asking for your statement and taking down notes on your accusation?

Weird, that's almost exactly what I said they should be doing.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

And at that moment.......everything stops. Unless I have something concrete to offer them, the chances of them getting a warrant to investigate or arrest my neighbor are slim to none. Sure, they might be able to go over and question him, but he could just deny it. That's assuming the cops don't have anything else better to do and decide to go over and question him at all.

Assuming you actually do have reason to suspect him (maybe you glanced in his window one day and saw something on his computer monitor or something), that's sufficient for a warrant.

Again, it's not up to you to prove anything. That's not your job, you're not equipped to handle it. If you say "I saw my neighbour looking at kiddie porn on his computer", you'll likely be asked to make a sworn statement to that effect - that would probably be enough for the cops to get a warrant to search your neighbour's house and seize his electronics for further analysis. If it's later found that no such material exists on his computer, you could potentially be charged with making a false statement. Either way, the investigation is done by the cops, not you.

GreenKnight127 posted...

In 2018, the game has changed. Women easily could get evidence to support a claim of abuse. Cell phones are everywhere. Social media can make tracking down witnesses very easy. So many streets, businesses, and intersections have cameras. If some guy does something terrible to a woman, there can be evidence to support it.

This ignores the fact that the allegations coming to light now didn't happen in 2018; they happened in a different era, with very different social standards.

Take it from someone who was around at the time, it was not the same environment back then.

GreenKnight127 posted...

If a woman wakes up in a frat house, and believes she might have been raped.......she could easily take pictures of bruises or questionable marks on her body the next morning in the bathroom. She could easily walk into a doctor's office and get swabs for possible DNA evidence. Build a case. Value your life. Seek justice.

You realise this is exactly what the #MeToo movement is about, yes? Past victims coming forward to say "Yes, this happens. Yes, this is still happening. Yes, we should take allegations seriously. And above all, Yes, victims should come forward."

Saying "Well, these women who are coming forward 30 years after the fact were clearly faking it" is going to have the exact opposite effect. And given some of the posts in this very topic, it's not surprising that the issue of women (and men) suffering in silence after being the victims of sexual assault is still a pertinent one.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Don't just sit in silence for years and wait for the guy to get successful and THEN decide to pounce. That shit makes her lose all credibility.

Why? Why do you think this is a deliberate choice?

Do you think Ford *knew* that Kavanaugh would one day be up for Supreme Court Justice and just decided to wait until exactly that moment to spring the trap she had been deviously plotting for years? Of course not. Most likely, she is behaving in exactly the same way as a lot of other women who eventually came forward - they say their abusers name suddenly splashed all over the headlines, it brought back unpleasant memories, and they finally decided to summon up their courage and right a past wrong.

Again, it's not like Ford never mentioned this before - her therapist has it in his notes going back to 2012 and her friends have stated she mentioned it to them before that. It's just that she never bothered going to the cops about it, presumably because she realised the potential for a criminal conviction is vanishingly small and, as such, it wasn't worth the effort.
---

darkknight109 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

Women in today's society DO need to prove a rape/assault/harassment occurred. Does that concept blow your mind or something? How else would a woman expect law enforcement to magically find evidence against the man to result in a conviction unless she brings something forward beyond a verbal testimony?

Because that's how things usually work?

You don't walk into the police station and say "I was raped! Here's several swabs I took of myself, witness statements from my neighbours, security camera footage taken from the gas station down the street that shows the suspect leaving my house, and an itemized history of rapes in the neighbourhood to help zero in on the culprit."

You walk in and say, "I was raped" and the cops take it from there.

Except, in the real world, the cops can't always just magically "take it from there."

Justice would come much more easily if there is evidence. They are going to ask the girl if she has any evidence to help with their investigation. If she has nothing to bring to the table, it is going to drag on forever, and ultimately lead in nothing happening.

If she was dumb and decided to not take pictures of the bruises or marks....it's going to make things a LOT harder. If she waited too long to go to the police and the bruises or marks have faded.....the cops won't be able to take photos of the marks or bruises for their own investigation.

If she didn't get any swabs done within a certain period of time, the DNA evidence won't be there, or it won't register properly to result in any kind of conviction.

Women need to do themselves a favor by being proactive. It's not rocket science.

If you want to interpret that as "victim-blaming" in some way, you are being dense. It's not victim-blaming to go out of your way to bring your attackers to fucking justice by doing a little legwork. Christ.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Women need to do themselves a favor by being proactive. It's not rocket science.

If you want to interpret that as "victim-blaming" in some way, you are being dense. It's not victim-blaming to go out of your way to bring your attackers to fucking justice by doing a little legwork. Christ.

None of which helps the women of 20-30 years ago who are coming forward now.

Yeah, it's much easier for the cops and the prosecution to build a case if you come forward right away. And on a related subject, why doesn't a woman just leave her husband if he's slapping her around?

People don't always act rationally, especially when sex and/or relationships are involved. There are piles upon piles upon piles of testimonials given by women explaining why they didn't come forward to the police right away (or sometimes at all). Sometimes they didn't feel they'd be believed, sometimes they didn't want their sex life splashed all over the evening news (especially back in the day when rape was more of a social stigma for the victim than for the perpetrator), sometimes they weren't even sure that what happened was rape as opposed to just a bad sexual encounter.

Would life be easier if that wasn't the case? Absolutely. But this is the world we live in and we have to play the hand we're given.
---

Isn't the TC the same guy that made a topic about how long was allowable before an adult man could sleep with underage girls if they were stranded on an island together?

Or some other creepy ass topic.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

I literally just posted several examples.

"a girl claiming that her sex partners raped her because she wants her crush to be sympathetic" and "an entire lacrosse team being accused of rape" are not examples, they are hypotheticals, and I have no idea who "Ducky" is. Try again.

Those are not hypothetical cases, they happened. In 2006 players from the Duke lacrosse team were accused of rape and assumed guilty from the start. Eventually during investigation it was proven to be a lie. In 2016 Nikki Yovino claimed to be raped at a party by two football players. During investigation she eventually admitted that she had consensual sex with them and the rape accusation was to try to get another guy she liked to show interest in her.

Statistics show that roughly 5% of all rape accusations are fabricated for whatever reason and that number is based on ones they could prove are a lie. Brian Banks went to prison for rape and the only reason he got out was because his accuser felt guilty years later and finally confessed she made the whole thing up.