Anti-gay preacher arrested for soliciting sex from a boy

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's not funny though - that's the typical defense in rape and child molestation cases - demonize the victim.

I can't help but feel that's what's occuring with the Kobe rape case right now. I went to an Irish pub/sports bar last night with some friends and a group of black guys where saying the woman Kobe (aledgedly) raped was a slut, that she'd been sleeping around, and so she probably really did want to be forced to have sex with Kobe.

Unfortunately, I think that poor woman is going to lose.

[The Mad Monk]

Pentecostals are part of the "charasmatic" wing of Protestantism. Long on singing, dancing, and other outward displays of vigorous devotion, short on theology and contemplation (at least in my experience).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I think all of your opinions on this are deplorable.

Yes, I think this guy is a sleeze but why the hell do you all assume he did it?

AH-so because some 14 year old says he did it, with no other evidence, it must be true, exactly!

Innocent untill proven guilty anyone?

I assume he did it because the victim (if true) has no real incentive to expose himself and his family to a lot of expense, ridicule and humiliation to prove a point that doesn't relate to him in the slightest.

If I was a juror, I'd be duty bound to convict or acquit on the basis of the evidence presented and the jury instructions, not my initial opinion.

Innocence until proven guilty is nothing more than a presumption for legal purposes at trial, it's meaningless outside that context. We're not obligated to assume "oh, that poor innocent man slanderously accused of wrongdoing."

If you want disgust, why is it than when it's a sexual crime, the victim's word is demonized? If the kid reported the van leaving the scene of a homicide or armed robbery and described the perp, then the rules are different. When it's a sex crime, the victim either made it up, or wanted it, but lied later.

WHY would he offer the kid $20 to give him a hummer? Dose that not seem a little reckless? None of this makes any sense.

Why would anyone? Yet it's a common sexual predator trick.

[Pekka]

Pedophiles always lure the kids with things like money, candy, beer, cigarettes, pornography... it's very common.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Shi: I don't know the difference. Can you please explain it to me?

Protestants(with the exceptions of Episcopalians) don't have priests. They have reverends/pastors.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I was hoping for Phelps, too, but I'm a bit taken aback by the instant assumption of guilt here. Same goes for that police statement prior to any trial, which seems blatently unprofessional.

Cops and DA's often refer to "suspects" as "*******s" and assume the guy they're trying to build a case against is guilty - if you assumed he was innocent, why would you waste time putting together a case at all. We have an adversarial system. Now a judge saying soemthing like that would be beyond unprofessional, but coming from a cop or DA, it's a non-issue, IMO.

Quick poll: how many of you are convinced of Kobe's guilt, with it's stronger evidence, and how many think it's likely he's raped before?

Statistically, multiple or serial rapists are much less common than serial or multiple pedophile sex offenders. Partly this may be skewed data from conviction rates and reporting disparities by other victims, but partly it's due to the fact that there are more common types of motive in rape cases than in pedophilia/molestation cases.

wrt the Bryant case, IMO until the real evidence comes out at trial, it's not clear. He claims it was consensual sex, she admits she went to his room, did the groupie thang, and was getting all flirty and kissy-poo. That's a lot more marginal than pulling her into the room when she was randomly walking down the hall.

I'm certainly not inclined to demonize the victim and say she's lying on the rape part of it, but with what's admitted by her, and the fact that preliminary hearings (like grand juries) are primarily prosecutorial shows, I'm not going to conclude more at this point than that he may well be guilty, and if so, deserves to get the book thrown at him hard. If she hadn't admitted the gameplaying at the beginning, but showed the same degree of trauma and the DNA evidence was clear, I'd be more inclined to assume he was guilty.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Unfortunately, I think that poor woman is going to lose.

She's may lose on the street, and she's already lost in the sports bar crowd, but sometimes those tactics really piss off a jury and backfire.

[connorkimbro]

why?

[MrFun]

Ah -- the bitterswett ironies of these so-called "straight-laced, morally superior" SOBs.

[connorkimbro]

mr fun, maybe you should realize that i've had a few drinks.

[MrFun]

Um . . .

I was referring to the perpetrator who is the subject of the article, not towards you, connor.

[Kuciwalker]

This is funny.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Juries are emotional, and in trials that are long enough, they start identifying psychologically and emotionally with different parties in the case.

The original Rodney King trial and the OJ trial are examples in extremis. In Rodney King's original trial, you go to a venue that's not only mostly white, but is cop and retired cop and government worker and similar - the bastions of order and decency holding down the barbarism of society.

So when you get four cops, good, hardworking, blue-collar, bastions of safety and security blah blah blah, and one no-account drunk who wouldn't pull over and then wouldn't do what he was told (and *our* officers put their lives at risk blah blah blah) you started out with an emotional linkage that was so one-sided from the beginning that facts never need enter into the case.

In the OJ trial, you had the opposite sort of identification - a jury drawn from an area that was generally hostile to the tactics of the LAPD, and had seen LAPD under Daryl Gates get away with some major screwups and malicious actions. So that jury didn't give a damn about the facts, because they were already willing to believe almost anything adverse about the DA's office or LAPD. So when Cochrane started talking "rush to judgment" from the beginning, then Scheck and others started down the "flying DNA" road, the jury was perfectly happy to accept a rationale (no matter how ridiculous) to allow them to distort their view of the parties and the evidence they provided. Johnnie Cochrane was once the #3 man in the LA County DA's office, so he knew that side of the system inside and out, and knew how to exploit the jury's built in dislike of the cops and authorities in general.

In a rape case, when you start demonizing the victim's sexual history (or alleged sexual history), you never know what road you're going down, because jury members may decide "she's some poor girl whose made some mistakes, but now she's being humiliated and mocked and dragged through the dirt, and that arrogant bastard is sitting over there all smug AND BY GOD IF ANYONE SAID THAT ABOUT MY LITTLE GIRL and I ... yeah, this bastard is guilty and now he's trying to punish this poor girl again, and IF HE GETS AWAY WITH IT blah blah blah "Guilty! - hang 'im."

Or they may decide "that poor guy seems nice, he really doesn't seem like the type... and this woman... ewwwww... God, the worst thing that poor man is guilty of is really bad taste...

It's all about emotion and who the jury will identify with. If the facts aren't in your favor, that may be all you have to work with (something smarter jury members will notice and point out to the rest), but it's definitely a coin toss.

[Dinner]

MtG: It doesn't matter one bit if she flirted with Kobe and played kissy with him. If she says she wants to keave and she doesn't want to have sex with him and then he throws her over a couch, pulls off her panties, and then rapes her while she's pleading for him to stop then he's a rapist. Even if you are having sex with your wife and she gets mad and tells you to stop but you decid you'd rather just ignore her and finish up then that is rape. Any time it isn't concensual then legal it is rape and concent can be withdrawen at any time.

[Kuciwalker]

Oerdin - so what? What's important (at least what we're talking about) is what the JURY will think.