the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

RobP3 wrote:I'm unclear as to what kind of evidence from criminal investigations you think will be publicly available on Youtube and similar, but the links above will bring some insight, I hope

Thanks for taking the time to provide those, I've given it all a read. What I'm looking for is similar to the evidence I referred to that I have gathered in my workplace. I have photographs, email prints and recorded conversations gathered with basic technology that would leave no doubt as to what has occured. I wouldn't think of going public with anything without quality evidence to back it up. I would say criminal trial standard of evidence but unfortunately it is possible to achieve a conviction just on the word of the accuser now.

So to conclude, given that I still can't find such evidence and I am trying, the issue of trial by media and false accusations concerns me more than the illedged harassment epidemic.

northern_mantis wrote:

RobP3 wrote:I'm unclear as to what kind of evidence from criminal investigations you think will be publicly available on Youtube and similar, but the links above will bring some insight, I hope

Thanks for taking the time to provide those, I've given it all a read. What I'm looking for is similar to the evidence I referred to that I have gathered in my workplace. I have photographs, email prints and recorded conversations gathered with basic technology that would leave no doubt as to what has occured. I wouldn't think of going public with anything without quality evidence to back it up. I would say criminal trial standard of evidence but unfortunately it is possible to achieve a conviction just on the word of the accuser now.

So to conclude, given that I still can't find such evidence and I am trying, the issue of trial by media and false accusations concerns me more than the illedged harassment epidemic.

Then probably your best bet, to find such evidence, is to approach the various police forces involved with a Freedom of Information request concerning individual cases. It's been a while since I worked at court, so I'm not sure if you can do the same with the CPS. Evidence bundles there were certainly distributed to the jury - that included any photos of injuries or autopsy, relevant transcripts of conversations, contemporaneous notes, witness statements and so on.

Cases like we are talking about where always more difficult due to their nature, ie often little in the way of physical evidence. I remember one case of a doctor accused of molesting a female patient. Very little "evidence" and the jury found him "not guilty". Only then was the rather frustrated judge able to tell them that the Dr had been accused by several other women too. The accuser in the dock, meanwhile, had been questioned in-depth by defence about her sexual history etc. So it is not just a case of pointing a finger and someone is jailed, at least IME.

It would be a shame, precious, if they hanged you by that sweet neck of yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPT49WXC0Zo

I suppose it is only common sense never to date a woman who thinks all men are rapists.

Excessive optimism has been ruin to many a plan.

RobP3 wrote:So it is not just a case of pointing a finger and someone is jailed, at least IME.

It's usually a case of point a finger and somebody gets off Scott free

Or get caught in the act and serve three months

Or rape a baby and get house arrest

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Right. Because all crimes are equally and fairly investigated and prosecuted. Sort of the entire point here.

Are you saying rape is investigated and prosecuted to a lesser degree than other crimes? I would say it's the opposite, and on top of that, rapists usually enjoy particularly good times once in jail. Society (a developed one) never liked them much, and for good reasons.

The core of the problem has been, historically, with victims (having trouble) coming forward and actually reporting the crime, presuming one was indeed committed. Not with the system prosecuting it, at least not any more or less than with any other crime of similar severity.

It's great that many real victims feel more secure/emboldened to report what happened to them -- but it comes with the flip side, where many are reporting events that could have easily been handled right on the spot, instead of involving the legal system.
It's along the same lines as over-diagnosing some "mental disorders", criminalizing little kids for "playing war", TSA taking away nail files and "oversized" shampoo bottles from 90-year-old ladies and patting them down, etc., etc., etc.

A small part of me wants to say that the society needs a bit of hardening-the-fuck-up, but that's not actually true. It didn't. It just is what it is; everything changes at its own pace and in its own direction...

Dmitri wrote:

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Right. Because all crimes are equally and fairly investigated and prosecuted. Sort of the entire point here.

Are you saying rape is investigated and prosecuted to a lesser degree than other crimes? I would say it's the opposite, and on top of that, rapists usually enjoy particularly good times once in jail. Society (a developed one) never liked them much, and for good reasons.

The core of the problem has been, historically, with victims (having trouble) coming forward and actually reporting the crime, presuming one was indeed committed. Not with the system prosecuting it, at least not any more or less than with any other crime of similar severity.

It's great that many real victims feel more secure/emboldened to report what happened to them -- but it comes with the flip side, where many are reporting events that could have easily been handled right on the spot, instead of involving the legal system.
It's along the same lines as over-diagnosing some "mental disorders", criminalizing little kids for "playing war", TSA taking away nail files and "oversized" shampoo bottles from 90-year-old ladies and patting them down, etc., etc., etc.

A small part of me wants to say that the society needs a bit of hardening-the-fuck-up, but that's not actually true. It didn't. It just is what it is; everything changes at its own pace and in its own direction...

Hi Dmitri, while you correctly point out that victims not coming forward is a big problem, I completely disagree that this is in any way a contradiction to my assertion. In fact, what I am talking about is exactly one of the main causes of what you are talking about. A very quick bit of digging will show that police departments around the country do not take these crimes seriously. Victim blaming and shaming is at least as widespread in the LEO community as it is in society at large. So, I respectfully disagree with you.

Rape is really not the point in this discussion. It's always been a crime. There have always been false claims. The #metoo movement is not about rape; the anti#metoo movement argues that #metoo is going too far.

One can make the argument that "too far" means that people are being "convicted" for minor offenses that might not even have occurred. This refers specifically to men, though several men have revealed experiences of sexual harassment. Anyway, people will use male experiences as part of their anti#metoo argument. In fact, looking closely, many of the claims of sexual harassment were applauded when they were made against Hollywood figures. The anti#metoo voices really heated up after sexual harassment claims were made against political figures.

Since #metoo, there have been accusations and resignations by politicians on both ends of the political spectrum. It's even been found that taxpayer money have been used to pay off sexual harassment suits. That payoff strategy is not new; it is the status quo that women are speaking out against.

It's certainly possible that taking it "too far" can mean putting someone in jail for whistling at a girl. Sure. Convicting and jailing someone for such a minor offense. Okay, I could point out a case where a boy was killed for whistling at a woman. Still, the point is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

When you guys talk about convictions, who has been convicted since #metoo? Who's been arrested? Weinstein, Spacey, they're at sex rehab. They lost their jobs, but might return. Roy Moore ain't in jail --and if he were jailed, the prez would pardon him, like Joe.

A friend told me yesterday that two NPR speakers were fired because of sexual harassment allegations that could be considered minor -such as calling a coworker "sweety pie." I agreed with him that firing the guy was a bit much. Still, I also told him that NPR could fire whomever they hired for whatever reason was in the contract. True, I might disagree, but a contract is a contract. But, they weren't taken away in handcuffs or jailed. Charlie Rose, Roy Moore, Bill Cosby, Harvey, Kevin, Conyers, O'Reilly, Franken are all walking free. They're just disgraced. More to come, more than likely.

What 'chall don't see is that this is the recycle of ninteen-seventy-something, all men are rapists at heart, even if we do not do it, setting, as I said before, false hopes in the hearts of some women.

My prior mention of Darwin may have been misinterpreted. What I mean is that only a chump would have progeny with a radical feminist, rendering a chumpifying effect going forward.

And now, in glorious potatovision, why leftism will never be a thinking man's creed.

Yep, it's a leftist thing. Well, maybe anti-rightist would be more accurate --except that "victims" include Cosby, Rose, Franken, Lauer, Louis CK, Russell Simmons. and other high profile lefties.

why leftism will never be a thinking man's creed.

Unfortunately for your subjective reality liberals are, on the whole, smarter than conservatives.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... servatives

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132655.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... ldemocrats

And, those with higher education levels skew even further to the left.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... eral-peers

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

why leftism will never be a thinking man's creed.

Unfortunately for your subjective reality liberals are, on the whole, smarter than conservatives.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... servatives

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132655.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... ldemocrats

And, those with higher education levels skew even further to the left.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... eral-peers

Oh, I see what happened. You thought I said intellectual.

klonk wrote:

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

why leftism will never be a thinking man's creed.

Unfortunately for your subjective reality liberals are, on the whole, smarter than conservatives.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... servatives

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132655.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... ldemocrats

And, those with higher education levels skew even further to the left.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... eral-peers

Oh, I see what happened. You thought I said intellectual.

Nope, that would only (possibly) apply to the last link. The rest are talking about IQ. Of course, if you can't read, you might think that anyone who can is an "intellectual." Strange that some people seem to think that is an insult. Probably mostly people who can't read.

Ya might want to go for a little more nuance there, Ian.

http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 42,00.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ation.html
http://greyenlightenment.com/conservati ... -liberals/