[competentone]

Originally posted by fastpat

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

....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....

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.

It is always hilarious to listen to the conclusions people jump to based upon a few statements one makes in a forum like this!

If your conclusions about this rape case are drawn as hastily and based upon as little "evidence" as those conclusions you have come to about me and the philosophy I hold, then I have all the more reason to doubt the veracity of your argument. (Your conclusions about me are flat wrong.)

You say that you have knowledge about this case "from someone who's following the case closely" -- I've conceded in my first statement that I have not followed the case closely, but if the prosecutor's case is as full of holes as you imply, it should be a "walk in the park" for the defense attorneys to get the facts in front of a judge and get the charges dismissed -- or are you going to tell me that all the judges in that jurisdiction are "prejudiced" against "rich, white boys, who are athletes" (just like I supposedly am) and cannot see what is so obvious to people like you?

I'll say it again, this is not a case where a group of boys were on their way to choir practice and suddenly a "crack whore" (to use someone's earlier description of the woman) leaps out from the bushes and starts screaming "They raped me!"

I am maintaining my position that there are two sides in this story, and that I think the defendants have been very successful in getting their side -- with their slant -- into the media.

I will concede that there are plenty of "jerk" prosecutors -- this may be a case involving one, but if these young men are wealthy as you claim they are, they should have no difficulty finding the right attorneys who will put such a prosecutor in his/her place.

The worst injustices occur when poor innocent defendants are convicted because their public defenders cannot give them an adequate defense against "jerk" prosecutors -- at least in this case (if we accept that the prosecutor is a moron) the defendants can lawyer up adequately.

(I'm sure you'll be able to spin that last comment into something about me being "biased" against rich people -- LOL!)