Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It

[Damocles]

I am not saying that she might have lied. I am saying that when she got to trial the jury might have seen her as lying. The tape was NEVER going to be heard by the jury because the police fucked it up bad. She said she could not remember if she said "no" or not. She admitted that they were fuck buddies. She let him in to her residence. She was topless when he walked into the room. I KNOW none of these invite rape, nor amount to consent, but a jury, once a defense attorney got to them with all this would walk the defendant. Those facts are a defense attorney's wet dream. DA's are not supposed to prosecute people they KNOW they can't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he didn't prosecute and there is NOTHING in his transcripts with her to show he thought she consented. You have overstated what can be proven from the evidence here.

This. I try to take it from the view of an attorney who has to make a decision whether or not to bring it to trial. Did he believe there was enough evidence to convict? That was the question he was answering.

 

[Cancel7]

"His saying sorry has nothing to do with it. He is not admitting it again because he would go to JAIL."

Jesus Christ, does this actually need to be said???

So if a man rapes you, it's okay as long as he calls you up and says he feels bad about it afterwards? Does that go if a man rapes Yurt as well? Yeah, I didn't fucking think so.

And you have to be a freaking retard (mean sartorially so it's ok per sar-ah!) to wonder why, if he admitted to his victim during what he thougt was a private conversation, he didn't admit it to the police when they asked him. I mean, Jesus Christ can we at least get some sort of a minimal IQ requirement to post here?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I never said that Buck raped anyone. I do view victim-blamers with a high level of contempt.

I don't know that Brown's aide viciously and deliberately used a derogatory words towards a woman, since many people do use the word whore in describing politicians of both sexes.

If somebody called Nicky Haley a whore, then that's something I would view far more skeptically. But in this context, about Whitman? No.

So... context matters when it is a Dem saying something?

ok... I understand your rules now...

 

[Cancel7]

I did link the entire transcript. I actually took it from your post, then quoted from that same transcript as well as linking it.

Well I missed that post, sorry. Probably because there's FIVE THOUSAND Yurt posts on this thread that a lot of people are answering. I understand some people feel his staggering stupidity should not stand, but it really mucks up a thread. At this point, I have missed a lot of posts, many of which probably have worthwhile shit in it, and I have to go for a few hours.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"His saying sorry has nothing to do with it. He is not admitting it again because he would go to JAIL."

Jesus Christ, does this actually need to be said???

So if a man rapes you, it's okay as long as he calls you up and says he feels bad about it afterwards? Does that go if a man rapes Yurt as well? Yeah, I didn't fucking think so.

And you have to be a freaking retard (mean sartorially so it's ok per sar-ah!) to wonder why, if he admitted to his victim during what he thougt was a private conversation, he didn't admit it to the police when they asked him. I mean, Jesus Christ can we at least get some sort of a minimal IQ requirement to post here?

Unfortunately it did need to be said. I tried spelling it out in a later post for poor yurt... but even that is likely to fail.

yurt is sofa king we todd did that he wasn't allowed on the short yellow bus, instead the townsfolk provided a yellow mini cooper just for poor little yurt.

 

[Onceler]

I'm having a somewhat challenging time seeing where the context makes this guy's comments look any better, at all.

He could have said "this is how it will look to people; it's not what I think, but I'm just saying how it looks." He didn't. He said "even me," and I believe the article is correct that we can presume he knew about the suspect's admission.

I also think his comments about the abortion that never really happened are extremely telling. I don't want to turn this into a pro choice/pro life thread, but those words are definitely revelatory to anyone who isn't a rabid pro-lifer....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well I missed that post, sorry. Probably because there's FIVE THOUSAND Yurt posts on this thread that a lot of people are answering. I understand some people feel his staggering stupidity should not stand, but it really mucks up a thread. At this point, I have missed a lot of posts, many of which probably have worthwhile shit in it, and I have to go for a few hours.

consider yourself skewered

 

[Damocles]

Well I missed that post, sorry. Probably because there's FIVE THOUSAND Yurt posts on this thread that a lot of people are answering. I understand some people feel his staggering stupidity should not stand, but it really mucks up a thread. At this point, I have missed a lot of posts, many of which probably have worthwhile shit in it, and I have to go for a few hours.

Bummer. I always like our conversations.

 

[Damocles]

My feelings have little to do with it. I'm all in favor of prosecutorial discretion. However, the exercise of that discretion is fair game for criticism. In my view, not prosecuting an admitted rapist because you are afraid that the defendant will succeed in blaming the victim is an improper exercise of that discretion and his reasoning is subject to criticism.

Your feelings are what we are going by here in your criticism. It is fair to criticize, I never said it wasn't, I simply point out that it is his job to make these decisions and it wouldn't be wise to go by the criteria of "If she really wants the case to go forward you should."

Had her attorney believed there was reason to compel, that the burden had been met, they could have filed that rather than even have the meeting.

Two things:

(1) What's the legal standard on a motion to compel prosecution?

(2) An alternative explanation is that she didn't have the money to pursue it.

This could be true, except the fact that if the attorney believed they had reason to compel and she won the motion, the state would pick up that bill. The "money to pursue" issue is on the table only in the fact that her attorney would tell her how likely she was to be able to win or lose that motion and how much it would cost if she lost.

The legal standard? That was something her attorney and Ken Buck were discussing. Ken didn't believe that they had enough for it to be a go, apparently neither did her attorney.

 

[Bonestorm]

Your feelings are what we are going by here in your criticism. It is fair to criticize, I never said it wasn't, I simply point out that it is his job to make these decisions and it wouldn't be wise to go by the criteria of "If she really wants the case to go forward you should."

Had her attorney believed there was reason to compel, that the burden had been met, they could have filed that rather than even have the meeting.

I understand it's his job to make these decisions. And it's our job as citizens to hold public officials accountable for the decisions that they make. You feel he acted appropriately. I disagree. And let me be clear about one thing. I'm not suggesting that prosecutorial discretion should be farmed out to victims and that isn't what is going on here. Whether the victim wants the case to go forward is an important consideration but more important in this case is that the guy admitted that he raped her. The case should go forward because he admitted to raping her.

This could be true, except the fact that if the attorney believed they had reason to compel and she won the motion, the state would pick up that bill. The "money to pursue" issue is on the table only in the fact that her attorney would tell her how likely she was to be able to win or lose that motion and how much it would cost if she lost.

Lots of things that cost up front capital but can pay off in the end are not pursued because of lack of up front capital. And while you assert that the state would pay her attorney's fees I'm not so sure you are correct. Do you have a link to the law in question?

The legal standard? That was something her attorney and Ken Buck were discussing. Ken didn't believe that they had enough for it to be a go, apparently neither did her attorney.

My understanding is that they were discussing the legal standard to secure a conviction, not the legal standard on a motion to compel prosecution. Those two things likely have different legal standards.

 

[Damocles]

I understand it's his job to make these decisions. And it's our job as citizens to hold public officials accountable for the decisions that they make. You feel he acted appropriately. I disagree. And let me be clear about one thing. I'm not suggesting that prosecutorial discretion should be farmed out to victims and that isn't what is going on here. Whether the victim wants the case to go forward is an important consideration but more important in this case is that the guy admitted that he raped her. The case should go forward because he admitted to raping her.

Had that admission been able to be admitted as evidence, rather than screwed up by the police, I would agree. However, they could not even mention the tape in court, such an admission was worthless when considering the rest of the evidence. Being "really really sure" isn't enough, as stated by Ken Buck in his first comment in the transcript.

Lots of things that cost up front capital but can pay off in the end are not pursued because of lack of up front capital. And while you assert that the state would pay her attorney's fees I'm not so sure you are correct. Do you have a link to the law in question?

Such a cause to compel is based on her right to a "fair trial" since it is based on a right, if they win the attorney is paid per US code. If they lose, not so much. This is largely how the ACLU gets paid as well.

My understanding is that they were discussing the legal standard to secure a conviction, not the legal standard on a motion to compel prosecution. Those two things likely have different legal standards.

Incorrect, read the transcript. They clearly bring up the motion several times, it is the reason they had the meeting. They discuss the motion, Buck first bringing it up "If you bring this motion", then her attorney, "If we bring this motion", then the victim "If we bring this motion"....

It is what the conversation was about.

 

[Bonestorm]

Had that admission been able to be admitted as evidence, rather than screwed up by the police, I would agree. However, they could not even mention the tape in court, such an admission was worthless when considering the rest of the evidence. Being "really really sure" isn't enough, as stated by Ken Buck in his first comment in the transcript.

This isn't the first case in which a confession is inadmissible. Certainly, it makes a prosecutor's job harder, but so what? Build a case and present it to the jury. If the jury decides there is reasonable doubt than so be it.

Such a cause to compel is based on her right to a "fair trial" since it is based on a right, if they win the attorney is paid per US code. If they lose, not so much. This is largely how the ACLU gets paid as well.

Now you're just making things up as you go along. I don't know is an OK answer.

Incorrect, read the transcript. They clearly bring up the motion several times, it is the reason they had the meeting. They discuss the motion, Buck first bringing it up "If you bring this motion", then her attorney, "If we bring this motion", then the victim "If we bring this motion"....

It is what the conversation was about.

This is what I see in the transcript, what am I missing:

(250) M#2: we’ve talked about a motion to compel prosecution, and that’s the only other option. Ultimately that’s going to be [Name redacted] decision. But that’s really the only option…. Whether or not we’re going to do that, I don’t know. Incredibly high burden …

(255) KB: Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered event. There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume (name of possible suspect redacted) knows about and that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives for (unintelligible) and that is part of what our calculation has been in this.

And in that exchange, the incredibly high burden of proof on the motion is raised by her attorney. My question is, what is that burden?

Also, I find KB's response to the mention of the motion to be extremely distasteful.

 

[Damocles]

This isn't the first case in which a confession is inadmissible. Certainly, it makes a prosecutor's job harder, but so what? Build a case and present it to the jury. If the jury decides there is reasonable doubt than so be it.

Or if you believe that it is not possible to secure a conviction, then you decide not to take up prosecution. Had the rest of the evidence, in his opinion, been enough to secure a conviction he would have pressed the case without the admission. He simply decided that it wasn't enough. Your disagreement is based on information that could not be brought to the court, and not on the remaining evidence.

Now you're just making things up as you go along. I don't know is an OK answer.

True, however I didn't make it up. If cause is brought to protect a civil right, if they win, US code compels the losing side to pay the attorney fees. It is often how the ACLU gets paid for such cases. Your own ignorance notwithstanding, I am not "making this up"...

This is what I see in the transcript, what am I missing:



And in that exchange, the incredibly high burden of proof on the motion is raised by her attorney. My question is, what is that burden?

Also, I find KB's response to the mention of the motion to be extremely distasteful.

What you are missing is the fact that each of the participants brought it up clearly stating it as the reason for the meeting. It wasn't in a vacuum that "If you bring this motion" came out of nowhere, it was clearly the central reason for the meeting. It was obviously the subject of the meeting, one so obvious to the participants and understood that each of them mention it, including the victim, in that same vein.

If you bring this motion, if we bring this motion, if I bring this motion...

Each one of them clearly stating that "this motion" was what was being discussed by all participants.

 

[Bonestorm]

Or if you believe that it is not possible to secure a conviction, then you decide not to take up prosecution. Had the rest of the evidence, in his opinion, been enough to secure a conviction he would have pressed the case without the admission. He simply decided that it wasn't enough. Your disagreement is based on information that could not be brought to the court, and not on the remaining evidence.

Yes, my disagreement is based on the fact that he knew that the guy was a rapist. In my view, if you know someone is a rapist, you ought to build the best case you can build, present it to the jury and let the jury decide it as opposed to throwing in the towel because it might be hard to prove.

True, however I didn't make it up. If cause is brought to protect a civil right, if they win, US code compels the losing side to pay the attorney fees. It is often how the ACLU gets paid for such cases. Your own ignorance notwithstanding, I am not "making this up"...

Yes, the civil rights statutes allow for an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing party. However, that is pursuant to federal statutes and applies to civil lawsuits where a person alleges that the government has violated his or her civil rights. The part you are just making up as you go along is where you claim that these federal statutes apply in state court where a person seeks to compel the government to prosecute a criminal case, which is altogether different from a civil rights action.

What you are missing is the fact that each of the participants brought it up clearly stating it as the reason for the meeting. It wasn't in a vacuum that "If you bring this motion" (one that hadn't been mentioned, but was clearly understood as the only subject per the context) came up. It was the subject of the meeting.

I'm just looking to find out the burden on the motion. Do you have any idea what that burden is? The meeting is silent on that issue other than the statement that it is "an incredibly high burden."

 

[Damocles]

Yes, my disagreement is based on the fact that he knew that the guy was a rapist. In my view, if you know someone is a rapist, you ought to build the best case you can build, present it to the jury and let the jury decide it as opposed to throwing in the towel because it might be hard to prove.





Yes, the civil rights statutes allow for an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing party. However, that is pursuant to federal statutes and applies to civil lawsuits where a person alleges that the government has violated his or her civil rights. The part you are just making up as you go along is where you claim that these federal statutes apply in state court where a person seeks to compel the government to prosecute a criminal case, which is altogether different from a civil rights action.






I'm just looking to find out the burden on the motion. Do you have any idea what that burden is? The meeting is silent on that issue other than the statement that it is "an incredibly high burden."

The only thing I know is that the cause was never brought, therefore they had reason to believe themselves that such a burden was not met.

And a right to a fair trial is a Federal right, such a reason to compel is based on that right. The law I provide, as far as I understand it, applies. I'm sure somebody like Socrtease can give us information you would accept without attempting to say he was "making stuff up" at the same time he was "right". So far your only argument is "You're right, they do have to pay for it if they lose such an action, but I don't want to admit that this could possibly apply here. Since I don't want to admit that, I'll say you are 'making stuff up'.... (I know, it is hard to say that you are both right and making stuff up about the exact same statement, but I'm going to anyway.)"

 

[Socrtease]

Yes, my disagreement is based on the fact that he knew that the guy was a rapist. In my view, if you know someone is a rapist, you ought to build the best case you can build, present it to the jury and let the jury decide it as opposed to throwing in the towel because it might be hard to prove.





Yes, the civil rights statutes allow for an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing party. However, that is pursuant to federal statutes and applies to civil lawsuits where a person alleges that the government has violated his or her civil rights. The part you are just making up as you go along is where you claim that these federal statutes apply in state court where a person seeks to compel the government to prosecute a criminal case, which is altogether different from a civil rights action.






I'm just looking to find out the burden on the motion. Do you have any idea what that burden is? The meeting is silent on that issue other than the statement that it is "an incredibly high burden."

Hard to Prove? This shit wasn't going to be hard to prove, it was going to be a slam dunk defense attorney's wet dream. But you want the prosecutor to try the case anyway. It would have cost him resources out of a limited coffer. It would have cost jurors at least 2 days of missed work, if you JUST count the trial and don't take into account the jury selection process. All of that and the worst part, some that you oh so sensitive and caring people don't understand, it would have forced the victim on the stand to talk about her sexual relationship with the accused. While rape shield laws protect a woman from having her entire sexual past brought up, it does not keep the defense from talking about her sexual relationship with the accused, and I can promise, a defense attorney would have had a blood feast on that alone. All of this for what would have ended in an acquittal. Not worth it. Someone has to do a cost-benefit analysis and part of that cost is the retraumatization of the victim. I love how easy it is to talk about this in a vacuum. I have had to actually conduct interviews of a real life rape victim that my client was accused of being the rapist. It sucks, you have to go into all the details. You have to question her identification of your client when the only time she saw her attacker was while she was being raped. Then, if it goes to trial you get to do it again. Only the most calous mutherfucker on the defense bar can do that without being affected. When it is done, and it ends in an acquittal, it is worse for the victim, because she thinks the jury did not believe her. Rarely is that the case, what the jury thinks is that the state didn't have the evidence. So when the state KNOWS from the beginning they don't have the evidence to get a conviction then yeah, they should decline to prosecute.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

right....you never said it equaled consent.....

good lord dude...your words are front and center

and soc agreed with me btw...don't see you calling out soc....yawner

so darla...explain your neg rep of this...

are you claiming onceler did not say the DA said it equaled consent? i guess you're brave enough to neg rep me, but not actually brave enough to have a discussion or a debate....much easier to solely neg rep

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Hard to Prove? This shit wasn't going to be hard to prove, it was going to be a slam dunk defense attorney's wet dream. But you want the prosecutor to try the case anyway. It would have cost him resources out of a limited coffer. It would have cost jurors at least 2 days of missed work, if you JUST count the trial and don't take into account the jury selection process. All of that and the worst part, some that you oh so sensitive and caring people don't understand, it would have forced the victim on the stand to talk about her sexual relationship with the accused. While rape shield laws protect a woman from having her entire sexual past brought up, it does not keep the defense from talking about her sexual relationship with the accused, and I can promise, a defense attorney would have had a blood feast on that alone. All of this for what would have ended in an acquittal. Not worth it. Someone has to do a cost-benefit analysis and part of that cost is the retraumatization of the victim. I love how easy it is to talk about this in a vacuum. I have had to actually conduct interviews of a real life rape victim that my client was accused of being the rapist. It sucks, you have to go into all the details. You have to question her identification of your client when the only time she saw her attacker was while she was being raped. Then, if it goes to trial you get to do it again. Only the most calous mutherfucker on the defense bar can do that without being affected. When it is done, and it ends in an acquittal, it is worse for the victim, because she thinks the jury did not believe her. Rarely is that the case, what the jury thinks is that the state didn't have the evidence. So when the state KNOWS from the beginning they don't have the evidence to get a conviction then yeah, they should decline to prosecute.

according to the transcripts, she wanted the trial and was not concerned about going on the stand....

so i fail to see how that could be a factor in this case

 

[Onceler]

so darla...explain your neg rep of this...

are you claiming onceler said the DA said it equaled consent? i guess you're brave enough to neg rep me, but not actually brave enough to have a discussion or a debate....much easier to solely neg rep

That wouldn't be a whine about a neg rep there, would it?

Nah - couldn't be.

LOL

 

[Socrtease]

according to the transcripts, she wanted the trial and was not concerned about going on the stand....

so i fail to see how that could be a factor in this case

Fair enough. She wanted to testify. Doesn't change the fact that this case is a loser.