#MeToo

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by vash

my wife endured some of this. it was the catalyst that made her change careers.

i dont laugh at any of it. none of it even remotely feels like a joke.

sorry for her troubles Vash. I realize it's a real thing and happens plenty. Certainly not helped by the antics associated with this Supreme Court confirmation.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Is lying, except under oath, a crime?

Assault is a crime. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can't we assume that they are both under oath? Just telling the bartender that you were assaulted isn't going to get you anywhere in the legal system as far as I know.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Sorry wd, I am not talking to you any longer.

Not a problem. It's my bedtime anyway.

[Crowbob]

I find Wd's stand on the burden of proof offensive. But that's just me. I've been there. Fortunately, the accuser dropped the whole thing after my attorney, per my unquestionably, unmistakably direct and explicit instructions to bring it forward. Bring it to the light any where, and any how, in any arena public or private at any cost. Bring it!

I thought Justice Kavanaugh's response was completely appropriate and quite possibly saved his confirmation. When he came forward with his response, he had nothing more to lose so it was not bravery. Nor was it calculated.

There is such a thing as honor.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Why?
Why assume the accuser is guilty of lying and he/shehas to prove they aren't? Why not assume the accused is guilty of assault or whatever and they have to prove they aren't?

Wow.

Originally Posted by Crowbob

I find Wd's stand on the burden of proof offensive.

No kidding. But you have to understand who you are dealing with - this clown has proven his utter stupidity "beyond a reasonable doubt" on so many occasions I've lost count.

[winders]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Why?
Why assume the accuser is guilty of lying and he/shehas to prove they aren't? Why not assume the accused is guilty of assault or whatever and they have to prove they aren't?

Why?? Voltaire said it best:

“It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin said it more dramatically:

“...it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer..."

If you don’t get that, you are in the wrong country. But you can certainly stay as we allow people that are stupid to stay in the U.S.!

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Wow.
No kidding. But you have to understand who you are dealing with - this clown has proven his utter stupidity "beyond a reasonable doubt" on so many occasions I've lost count.

Leading with a personal attack again Jeff. Very classy.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by winders

Why?? Voltaire said it best:

“It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin said it more dramatically:

“...it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer..."

If you don’t get that, you are in the wrong country. But you can certainly stay as we allow people that are stupid to stay in the U.S.!

More personal attacks. Just can't control yourselves can you?


I understand the assumption of innocence. My question is how do you resolve this paradox.

Assume the man is innocent of assault- he didn’t do it.
Assume the woman is innocent of lying - he did it.

As I said, for much of history it was mostly assumed women were guilty of lying when they make an accusation. Fortunately we seem to be moving to an era when the assumption of innocence is more even handed.

[winders]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

More personal attacks. Just can't control yourselves can you?


I understand the assumption of innocence. My question is how do you resolve this paradox.

Assume the man is innocent of assault- he didn’t do it.
Assume the woman is innocent of lying - he did it.

As I said, for much of history it was mostly assumed women were guilty of lying when they make an accusation. Fortunately we seem to be moving to an era when the assumption of innocence is more even handed.

There is no paradox. The person being accused is presumed innocent until proven, to some standard of proof, otherwise. That standard of proof is higher in a criminal case than it is in most civil cases. It is up to the accuser(s) to provide evidence supporting their accusation.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof required in criminal cases in the U.S. This means that there is "no plausible reason to believe otherwise". For most civil cases, "preponderance of the evidence" is the burden of proof required. The phrase often used with this is "more likely than not".

A women saying a man abused her is, on its own, not enough evidence to meet the burden of proof in civil or criminal trials. Nor should it be.

Just because the burden of proof is not met does not mean the accuser is lying. They could be telling the truth, they could be lying, they could be confused, they could be misremembering, or they could be misidentifying someone.

We cannot know what is in a person's heart (or mind if you prefer). This is why we must have enough evidence to support their accusation to some level of burden of proof before we can find someone guilty.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

We can suppose a million scenarios. That one is pretty far out there. I doubt that it has ever happened. When it is so common that it has its own definition, like “date rape” I will be glad to talk about what we should do about the problem of “accusations for hire.”

What?! It happens all the damn time. Sadly lying has become something acceptable in our country, and when people lie in public settings and often under oath, there are no penalties. No penalties means that it will continue happening. Crimes should have to be PROVEN, that is the basis of our legal system. We are talking about something so heinous that simply the accusation can ruin your life.

Patrick, you frequenly post about how much you love your wife which is fantastic. But think for a moment how difficult it would be for you and your marriage if another woman accused you of sexual harassment or assault. That would put a serious strain on any marriage, no matter how strong. What about your kids and grandkids, would you like to explain to them why you are being talked about on the news for doing horrible things to another woman? We are in the environment today where people can accuse anyone of horrible things, no matter untrue, and simply the accusation can destroy their life.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

As I said, for much of history it was mostly assumed women were guilty of lying when they make an accusation. Fortunately we seem to be moving to an era when the assumption of innocence is more even handed.

Please give examples of this. I do not remember this being the case.

[Seahawk]

The ACLU showed their true colors: https://forums.pelicanparts.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=10207811



“The ACLU opposes the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. There are credible allegations that Judge Kavanaugh has engaged in serious misconduct that have not been adequately investigated by the Senate. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible testimony, subsequent allegations of sexual misconduct, the inadequate investigation, and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony at the hearing lead us to doubt Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

“This is not a decision taken lightly. We cannot remain silent under these extraordinary circumstances about a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. The standard for such an appointment should be high, and the burden is on the nominee. That burden is not met as long as there are unresolved questions regarding the credible allegations of sexual assault.”

Sure.

[widgeon13]

credible allegations

WTF were they, holy crap?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

credible allegations

WTF were they, holy crap?

No kidding. Here are the four times the ACLU have broken their sacred tratiion:

This is the fourth time in the group's 98-year history that the ACLU's national board of directors has voted to oppose a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2006, the organization opposed President George W. Bush's nomination of Justice Samuel Alito citing concerns about his 'expansive view of executive authority' and decisions he has written on race, religion and reproductive rights.

In 1987, the group opposed President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork, whom was eventually voted down by the Senate.

In 1971, it opposed President Richard Nixon's nomination of Justice William Rehnquist.

They recently opposed Neil Gorsuch.

What were the grave accusations against Gorsuch, btw?

[Rawknees'Turbo]

Originally Posted by winders

. . . But you can certainly stay as we allow people that are stupid to stay in the U.S.!

We even elect them to lead this country.

[pmax]

#metoo is so 2016.