My point is that you guys seem to be framing all your arguments as if you're protecting Good Guy Greg from all these false rape accusations, where my point is that Good Guy Greg is not the one that's going around raping and/or abusing women, and the Good Guy Gregs of the world are not the ones being accused of rape. So while yourhypotheticalarguments are all designed to protect Good Guy Greg, what they're doing inrealityis protecting Scumbag Steve.
Define Scumbag Steve please. What did he do that should be punished. The main issue is that you refuse to give a substantive argument. You are not taking a position, you are cluster bombing a bunch of potential positions and then pouncing on people for not being specific.
Or pouncing on people if they try and pin her to any position that could be falsifiable.
And what about the rights of victims? Our legal system is actually set up to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of the victim to seek justice. If it was just set up to protect the accused, they'd get cleared every time. It's actually setup to be about 51/49 between the rights of the accused vs the rights of the victim. We're also talking about a legal system that was set up when women didn't really have rights, and we liked to pretend people didn't have sex in polite society, and was never really designed to handle rape and sexual abuse.
Scumbag Judys don't exist, duh. I think this line is indicative of the issue in Mist's supposition, and it's why she won't buckle down and define.
They're going to want to coddle the accused, in either situation. Because we are innocent until proven guilty.
51/49 is not the standard of reasonable defense. I'm not going to just take a fallacious position as fact. It's set up so to doubt the accusation would beunreasonable. 51/49 ispreponderance, it's specifically NOT set up like that.
I'm definitely not talking about shitty boyfriends, I already said she has no legal leg to stand on.
Yes, exactly. We finally agree on something, Big P. I get the impression that most of the dudes in this thread think most rapes should never go to trial because we always have to side with the accused by default.
I really don't think she's going to go around embarrassing the shit out of herself if the guy did absolutely nothing to abuse her.
The DA's make the decision not to go to trial because there's no fucking evidence.
Wha? You mean to tell me that she would never falsely accuse the shitty boyfriend for being a shitty boyfriend just to get back at him? No legal leg to stand on? WTF are you talking about? The problem is shes got three legs to stand on, contrary to his supposed three legs. (pun intended)
She isn't "embarrassing the shit out of herself", she is making herself a celebrity and getting actual college credit for it.
