[fastpat]

Originally posted by competentone
I guess you could say that being a die-hard atheist does make me "unChristian" -- so you got that call right!

Atheist have morals, do they not? Or are they bereft of both God and morality?

As for being "unAmerican" -- I have never considered the idea of a person "ending up being arrested when he is accused of rape" as being "unAmerican."

The "Duke Three" were arrested and charged prior to the investigation, based on prosecutorial discretion. Now that the evidence the prosecutor stated he was relying on has proved not to exist, one would expect the charges that weret filed to be dropped immediately, much less remain in force as they have.

Investigations take time and evidence is not always "perfect" (unlike people's TV inspired view of police work). It is the jury's job to determine the validity of each side's evidence. It is not your job to determine guilt or innocence based upon what the media reports. (I am assuming the media is your source of information on this case?)

No, it from someone who's following the case closely, reviewing such evidence when it surfaces. Keeping in mind that there is no evidence that a rape took place, and there is evidence that at least one, perhaps two of the accused were not present when the woman alleges the rape took place. In one instance, the accused wasn't present at all when the woman was "performing".

The facts as I know them: A bunch of guys (it sounds to me like "jocks with an attitude" -- I've met the type before) have a drunken party with strippers.

You've revealed your prejudices yet again. What their attitude was or is is wholly irrelevant. You don't like athletes, we see that.

One of the strippers goes to authorities and says she has been raped. What do you want the prosecutor to do? Just ignore the accusation because the woman has a questionable background?

As an "authority" I investigate to see if a rape actually occured, and when evidence says no rape occured, I stop the investigation.

I have little sympathy for these "boys" -- just as I have minimal sympathy for the stripper if she was in fact raped -- but I am very aware that the defendants' lawyers are the source of most of the accusations questioning the woman's character/story.

Then you're wrong twice in the above paragraph. Number one, your statement indicates that you're not interested in justice, you're interested in some kind of "social justice", which has been the position of Duke University. They've suggested, in print, that they Duke Three should be convicted, not on the basis of having raped the accuser, but on the basis of being white (and in at least one case, wealthy) and hiring a black stripper. Not using the law to punish a crime of violence, but to mete out "get even" sentencing that needed have an actual crime occur. Second, the prosecutor has made numerous statements about the so-called evidence, including actual lies that there is evidence that turns out not to exist at all.

I have my doubts about both sides' stories. And do not mind seeing these "boys" sweat while a thorough investigation is conducted. A little "rough justice" is not something I'm going to get "outraged" over in this case. There are plenty of other injustices that are far more deserving of my outrage.

Again, it's obvious that you don't like rich, white boys who are athletes, apparently thinking that the justice system ought be able to "teach them a lesson" with guns; that idea has no place in America and is in fact about as un-American an idea as I've seen here recently.