Alleged Rape Victim Refuses Questioning By Alleged Rapist; Charges Dismissed

reply to post by Aeons


It is quite irelevant what happens in seperate cases as each must be taken on it's merits. You cannot go round locking up people based solely on an accusation simply because some people get away with crimes they did commit. Trials are there for a reason. What you're suggesting is because some poeple do get away with crimes, everyone should be locked up just to be sure.

I think you;re letting emotion get in the way of facts and a fair trial. God forbid you ever end up on a jury.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I grant your point. It is a terrible thing the justice system. It is a god awful blunt instrument used for delicate microsurgery. I respect why it is the way it is.

reply to post by Aeons


I really have no idea how I would feel, I never had it happen. But like I said, I do not know him, or any of the three girls. I have no horse in the race, so I do not know who is lieing. But I do know it is possible they are lieing, so I am assuming he is innocent, until proven otherwise, according to the law. Just because someone is emotional, doesn't prove they are telling the truth.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Aeons

 

It is quite irelevant what happens in seperate cases as each must be taken on it's merits. You cannot go round locking up people based solely on an accusation simply because some people get away with crimes they did commit. Trials are there for a reason. What you're suggesting is because some poeple do get away with crimes, everyone should be locked up just to be sure.

I think you;re letting emotion get in the way of facts and a fair trial. God forbid you ever end up on a jury.

I have not suggested any such thing.

I merely hold those with no empathy and less humanity to account for their judgments, and the political points scored on backs of raped children.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons

 

I really have no idea how I would feel, I never had it happen. But like I said, I do not know him, or any of the three girls. I have no horse in the race, so I do not know who is lieing. But I do know it is possible they are lieing, so I am assuming he is innocent, until proven otherwise, according to the law. Just because someone is emotional, doesn't prove they are telling the truth.

Ah, no you withhold judgement on the accused but freely dole it out on the accusers. You have a horse in the race, and your bias is pretty clear.

reply to post by Aeons


so in your opinion, the accuser is always telling the truth

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Aeons

 

so in your opinion, the accuser is always telling the truth

Let me reiterate:

The Argument of False Alternatives - You Use It. Repeatedly apparently.

reply to post by Aeons


I never accused anyone of anything. It is 50/50, they could be lieing, they could be telling the truth. I am not going to assume they are truthful, that would be biased....

reply to post by Aeons

what is that?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons

 

I never accused anyone of anything. It is 50/50, they could be lieing, they could be telling the truth. I am not going to assume they are truthful, that would be biased....

But you will assume he is truthful and a victim at that.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons

 

I never accused anyone of anything. It is 50/50, they could be lieing, they could be telling the truth. I am not going to assume they are truthful, that would be biased....

But you will assume he is truthful and a victim at that.

But arent you saying the same thing bout the victim?

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Aeons

 

what is that?

If is a Fallacy of Logic. It has a couple of names it goes by: False Dichotomy, False Dilemma, The Either-Or Fallacy, or in this case it could also be fallacy of false choice -

False Dichotomy
Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.

www.theskepticsguide.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons

 

I never accused anyone of anything. It is 50/50, they could be lieing, they could be telling the truth. I am not going to assume they are truthful, that would be biased....

But you will assume he is truthful and a victim at that.

But arent you saying the same thing bout the victim?

No.

reply to post by Aeons


I will assume anyone is innocent until proven guilty, as should everyone else... People shouldn't get into this emotional get the torches and pitchfork mentality, anytime people are charged with an ugly crime. Call me old fashioned I guess, but I wouldn't have been among the croud that went and lynched black people accused of something before trial, that's for sure.

looks like you are by your comments

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

So? That doesn't mean anyhting without a fair trial, as has been discussed already.

I could accuse you tomorrow of using cucumbers in a distasteful manner on me when I was a child and make a very convincing act out of it too. Does that mean you did it? No. At the very elast you would expect an investigation and, if it came to it, a fair trial where you had a chance to defend yourself against the accusations.

Just because someone says you are something, that doesn't make it so. It is why we have trials in the first place.

I dont recall stating the accused does not deserve a fair trial. I already stated I strongly support the right of a defendant to question his accuser. I know why we have trials, too.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Tater DID say that, I agree

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Aeons

 

Let me tell you, not every accuser is telling the truth, its way far too often its a lie to cover something up, revenge, out to make a fast $$, or plain out psycho.
The Innocence Project has had hundreds of men, people you would most like automatically consider guilty because of the conviction, literally go free because the evidence DID NOT BACK UP THE ACCUSER'S story.

People like this guy, who is walking free because his accuser probably couldnt face her lie.

Have you read this thread? What case are you talking about??

This guy is not walking around free, he is on trial facing three other accusers. Where in the world are you getting this couldnt face her lie nonsense?

You are trying to posit innocent til proven guilty, yet you just judged this girl guilty without a trial.

Now which way do you want to have it?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Aeons

 

Or maybe suicidal because she were overwhelmed with guilt about being part of a vendetta started by their mother, and lieing? I don't know these people, that seems like just as much of a possibility to me.

Where did this conclusion come from?

If you dont mind, could you quote and post up the parts of the articles that lead you to believe this is some type of vendetta, particularly the mother's involvement?

I feel like there are a lot of posters who are commenting on a diffrent case than the one in the OP.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


He has translators, it says so in one of my links.

Where did you see he lacks translators, and also, where is the lack of justice? The man is on trial, that IS called justice in America.