This is topic Rant on the Kobe Bryant rape case in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/4453.html

Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
The prosecution has dropped all charges against Kobe Bryant, with prejudice, because the victim will no longer participate in the case.

I'm shocked and appalled and a little bit pissed.

Why go to the eve of trial and then back out on account of something that happened months ago?

For now at least, the victim's civil case is on track--which I find incompatible with her refusal to participate in the criminal case. If the civil case goes forward, I don't see much room for any conclusion other than that she lied. (Afterall, she won't be able to be protected from testifying there, and rape shield applies at a much lower level in civil court, if it applies at all.)

Even if she didn't lie, refusing to go forward at this time makes it look like she lied.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Yeah, well, the plaintiff was suspect pretty much from the start. I usually tend to suspect rich athletes, but this case just reeked of bull****. My guess? he seduced her, then told her to get lost, she got offended and decided to get revenge.
 
Posted by GlobalDemocrat (Member # 885) on :
 
What makes this case different from other high profile black sportsmen rape cases? From the OJ trial (as far as general public reactions)?

Is this case completely free from racial bias? (whites think he did it, blacks don't)

It seems pretty suspect that she won't do the criminal but will do the civil, but then again, one has better chances of winning legally AND financially there.
If she DOES get paid, it's very much Prostitution, American style ... [Wink] as much as a fifties-wedding.
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
She was laughing about it afterwards, I heard; it was the money. I think Wm Kennedy Smith is a cad, but I can't see her case either.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
"If she DOES get paid, it's very much Prostitution, American style ... as much as a fifties-wedding."

God are you a sicko.
 
Posted by thegreatgrundle (Member # 1921) on :
 
She's not even going to get that much, even if she wins. Kobe will probably settle for a couple thousand dollars and be done with it.

What makes me mad is that I just said this was definitely going to trial on another thread... [Embarrassed]

[ September 02, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: thegreatgrundle ]
 
Posted by GlobalDemocrat (Member # 885) on :
 
How am I a sicko, and how is this NOT Prostitution? they had sex, and now she get's money.
How's prostitution different from he buys her 3 dinners-with-a-movie and then they have sex?

In Europe, girls tend to insist paying for the second round of drink so as not to create imbalance.
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Maybe she wasn't lying--maybe the people calling her and threatening to kill her really did get to her, after a while, and it took some reflection on how bad it was going to get for her to refuse to go further.

Datapoint: DAs, prosecutors, they can call victims to testify against their will. They can *jail* a victim for contempt if she refuses to tell the whole truth and nothing but. While not entirely ordinary, this kind of thing does happen alot in domestic violence cases. A crime is not committed against an individual as much as it is against society.

I tend to think he did it.

tgg, if the civil case goes on, there will be a trial: you're not wrong just yet.

GD, the difference is choice. She could walk out of dinner. As of today, she's had little other than grief.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Zyne -- I've seen police put incredible pressure on rape victims to force them to recant charges. But I haven't followed this case to see that is what happened here.

quote:
whites think he did it, blacks don't
I hadn't observed it breaking down that way. From my limited observation, blacks are more interested in the case than whites, but I haven't seen the sort of racial alignment like we saw in OJ.

I did see some white feminists really sit down and question what they believed about rape law. This case really shot some of the protections that we built for rape victims clear to hell. As much as I hate to admit it, OSC might have been right about the zeal to punishing rape leading to laws that punish the innocent along with the guilty. If the court had enforced the law as written, testimony that directly impacted the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of rape would have been thrown out. I long supported laws to prohibit defence from impeaching the rape victim's character by discussing her sex life ("sluts like that aren't allowed to say no"), but Plaintiff's attorneys in this case were almost able to use the law to prevent examination of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of rape.

With that said, Kobe should have kept his dick in his pants and been faithful to his wife. In that sense, regardless of the truth of rape, he's not innocent.

Adultery is one thing, and rape quite another. But as OSC pointed out in one of the Memory of earth series, a sexual double-standard is an excellent way of discouraging sexual infidelity. If you punish both parties equally, you make them collaborators in the crime. But a double-standard makes illicit lovers suspicious of each other, and breaks down many affairs before they start.

In that moralistic sense, the Colorado law might be a good idea. Once the idea gets out that any random sexual encounter could lead to an indefensible charge of rape, guys would have a strong reason to avoid such encouters, or at least to use a condom. Either way, that's not entirely a bad thing.

But as modern, western law, and to fulfil the ideal of fairness, it just does not work.
 
Posted by DaleNotSoNoble (Member # 2006) on :
 
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did," Bryant said. "I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

-Kobe Bryant

I don't know how such a polarity in notions about a given sexual encounter can arise. How does one confuse the willing versus the unwilling? dn
 
Posted by GlobalDemocrat (Member # 885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


In that moralistic sense, the Colorado law might be a good idea. Once the idea gets out that any random sexual encounter could lead to an indefensible charge of rape, guys would have a strong reason to avoid such encouters, or at least to use a condom. Either way, that's not entirely a bad thing.

[/QB]

There's a law in colorado thats says ANY sex can be rape? And you don't think that's a bad thing? This, much more than anything you've posted shows me your warped and clearly repressed sexuality.
*Shudder*

I really hope you don't represent the majority of americans.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
"How am I a sicko, and how is this NOT Prostitution? they had sex, and now she get's money."

I wasn't talking about the Bryant comment, I was talking about "as much as a fifties-wedding." If you were serious, then that is pretty sick.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Jason, some radical feminist (Ti-Grace Atkinsion, I think) once said that "love is the victim's response to the rapist". I think GD is working from the same playbook. [Smile]
 
Posted by Star Pilot 111 (Member # 1972) on :
 
Does anyone think, some of Kobe's friend may have paid someone to leak those documents that killed her case?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
"Jason, some radical feminist (Ti-Grace Atkinsion, I think) once said that "love is the victim's response to the rapist". I think GD is working from the same playbook."

Yes, that's what I thought. Hence my tremendous respect for radical feminists [Smile]
 
Posted by aupton15 (Member # 1771) on :
 
The funniest thing about this thread is that we don't have nearly enough information to make any kind of rational conclusion. The alleged victim could be motivated by any number of things (including telling the truth) and we will never, ever, ever know. What's worse, if this were some random white guy in Colorado we probably wouldn't have heard about it at all (unless he played football for the university). I just hope everybody walks away from it relatively unscathed, and that the whole story goes away soon so they can move on with their lives as much as possible.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
What's your native language, GD? Perhaps you should get some help from a translator.

quote:
There's a law in colorado thats says ANY sex can be rape?
NO. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
And you don't think that's a bad thing?
[Roll Eyes] Let's try that again, with emphasis to help you read. I think that "In that moralistic sense, the Colorado law might be a good idea. Once the idea gets out that any random sexual encounter could lead to an indefensible charge of rape, guys would have a strong reason to avoid such encouters, or at least to use a condom. Either way, that's not entirely a bad thing.

[b]But as modern, western law, and to fulfil the ideal of fairness, it JUST DOES NOT WORK.
"

In teeny little words:

The Colorado law is UNFAIR, restricts access to critical evidence, and thus DOES NOT BELONG in US law, even though some of the results of that law (encouraging guys to wear condoms in casual sex so they don't leave DNA) would be a good thing.

Do you think that it's a good thing for people to have casual sex without a condom? Do you deny the existence of HIV as well as denying European atrocities against Jews?

[ September 02, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Van Aaron (Member # 98) on :
 
quote:
If this were some random white guy in Colorado we probably wouldn't have heard about it at all . . .
And if it were a random black guy we wouldn't have heard about it. But if it had been Larry Bird or some other famous white athlete, we would have heard just as much about it. I don't understand the racial angle some of you seem to want to push.
 
Posted by Danzig (Member # 1358) on :
 
I just wish more people would condemn Kobe for his adultery. I have no opinion on whether or not he raped the girl, but marital infidelity is forgiven far too quickly by the American public. Obviously this is not just about Kobe, but it is a convenient example.

As for confusing willing and unwilling, you might be unaware of how intoxicated the other party is.
 
Posted by GlobalDemocrat (Member # 885) on :
 
Adultery is apperantly not something a lot of people care about? Maybe that's because, in the end, this breach of trust is between 2 people, and this scarlet letter business is kinda hypocritical. If it's really true that about 60 percent of Americans thought that Lewinsky etc. was Clinton's private business, then even the majority of Americans have abandoned this hypocrisy.
 
Posted by aupton15 (Member # 1771) on :
 
Van Aaron, I said white guy because Eagle County is something like 99.7% white. I agree that fame is the most important variable here, but it is naive to assume that race had nothing to do with this case, even though it shouldn't.

I think adultery should be dealt with by the people involved. In most cases the punishment that comes from your partner is probably enough, without someone outside the relationship rushing to condemn you too. It should never enter into the court setting, or the public eye.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Since you didn't reply to my question, GD, shall I conclude that HIV is something that you don't care about? And since you dismiss adultery as a mere breach of trust between "2 people," you seem to not care about children either. Some children don't seem hurt by parents' adultery, but then some husbands and wives don't seem hurt by it either. Adultery very often leads to alienation from and abandonment of children. It would not surprise me to hear that you do not care about the pain in children's eyes to see daddy shacking up with a different woman, and leaving mommy, but that pain is real.

The pain is also real if daddy's adultery ends up giving mommy a disease. I knew one lady who was given HIV by her adulterous husband, and passed on the virus to her baby through mother's milk. For you to tell her that she has no cause of action against her husband for adultery (when that breach of trust resulted in giving her and her child a FATAL DISEASE), because her pain is her "private business," is cold-blooded and inhumane. It is also, sadly, a typical attitude for anti-family leftists. "Sorry, lady, sorry, baby; you are just victims of a "victimless crime."

And if Marriage is only a 2-way contract, then why is the state involved in the formation of the marriage contract? Why do you need a marriage licence? If 2 people want to make a contract, they can do so, and not involve the government unless there's a problem with enforcing the contract. The state's involvement in licencing marriage establishes that the state is a party to the marriage. If you don't understand that, then go read a book on contract law.

[ September 02, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by aupton15 (Member # 1771) on :
 
Pete, are you suggesting that the state prosecute adultery...or only prosecute divorce (since this is the actual breaking of the contract). I don't think anyone is saying that there is no victim, but that it is not a crime under current legislation. Nobody is endorsing adultery, only suggesting that it shouldn't be a public issue. People should be free to choose how to deal with it within their household, rather than having it broadcast to their community.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1