quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

Can't believe I am having to explain this....you need evidence to back up your testimony...especially when accusing someone who says they are innocent.

---

You said, in caps, zero evidence, in a case where there was testimonial evidence. Just plain wrong.

---

She had ZERO EVIDENCE to support her story. None. Her testimony was absent any facts, etc.

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

Can't believe I am having to explain this....you need evidence to back up your testimony...especially when accusing someone who says they are innocent.

---

You said, in caps, zero evidence, in a case where there was testimonial evidence. Just plain wrong.

---

She had ZERO EVIDENCE to support her story. None. Her testimony was absent any facts, etc.

---

I can't tell which word you misapprehend the most,, evidence or facts.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

Can't believe I am having to explain this....you need evidence to back up your testimony...especially when accusing someone who says they are innocent.

---

You said, in caps, zero evidence, in a case where there was testimonial evidence. Just plain wrong.

---

She had ZERO EVIDENCE to support her story. None. Her testimony was absent any facts, etc.

---

I can't tell which word you misapprehend the most,, evidence or facts.

---

They are the same.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

I notice that now that there are facts being reported by the local paper that might support the DA's decision you have gone off topic and onto a political rant.

It is incredibly biased to paint either party as the one that excuses bad sexual acts. Both parties have had their fair share of sexual abusers and had party members rush to their defense or respond with, "Yeah, but..."

We can back and forth tossing examples from both sides so don't waste everyone's time with that line of conversation.

---

I didn't bring up Kavanaugh--FadSkier did, as an example of poor persecuted men wrongly accused by evil women. But I'm tired beyond keeping my temper of conservatives acting like the only story there is that poor Brett got a raw deal, when most non-Republicans and more than a few moderate Republicans (probably mostly women) think that isn't the case.

As for the Waco case, pleading no contest, if I understand it correctly, doesn't mean you aren't guilty. It simply means you aren't contesting the charges against you. In this case, Mr. Anderson got a very good deal. Except in the court of public opinion.

And, while I agree that both parties have their fair share of sexual abusers, Republicans have proven much more adept than Democrats at either ignoring, disrgarding, excusing, defending or covering up the sexual misconduct of their politicians, including Newt Gingrich, who was all over Clinton while he was living with Calista while married to his second wife. Dennis Hastert tried to cover for Mark Foley and then was revealed to himself be a pedophile; he may still be in the federal pen. Kavanaugh obviously drank hard and didn't remember everything he did in high school and his alcholic buddy went into hiding, but Blasey Ford was villainized by the right. There's a huge double-standard. I'd like to see Republicans hold their own pols responsible for keeping their pants zipped and their hands to themselves. I'm still waiting.

---

Can you never admit to being wrong about anything. There are 30 something million men who voted R in 2016 for President. Virtually none, want men to get away with sexual crimes.

What people of all stripes I would hope do want, is men that are accused to get a fair trail and not to be assumed guilty if accused, which is a dangerous precedent a small few have started.

---

I agree wholeheatedly that people--men and women--don't want men to get away with sexual crimes.

I also understand how people could think a man HAS gotten away with a sexual crime when he isn't actually prosecuted for it, but is instead allowed to plead guilty to a lesser crime.

"The prosecutor didn't think she could get a conviction" isn't a good answer, and neither the perp--who pleaded no contest to detaining the woman (and why did he detain her, exactly?), got off with a slap on the wrist, but has been convicted in the court of public opinion--or the victim, who didn't do herself any favors by making a scene at the courthouse.

I would really like to see plea deals taken out of the criminal justice system. They infect an element of fiction into legal proceedings that shouldn't be there.

---

This guy is certainly enemy #1 in the eye of the public. He should be in jail though if he did what he was accused of.

I didn't realize the victim made a scene. I know people get enraged when they are wronged, but to a jury such a rage could say, hey I'm unstable, my word may be unstable. But, I sure understand.

Malbec said:

---

riflebear said:

---

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article223044915.html

---

Quote:

---

"...no evidence of injury in a hospital photograph taken 1 1/2 hours after the alleged incident.

There is no DNA evidence linking Mr. Anderson to this incident."

---

---

Yea, read that entire thing. The Anderson guy should have demanded a trial, the dude is now branded for life. One person said she "stalked" him at the party. That they were kissing passionately and grinding all over each other witnessed by 100+ people. She was smiling and laughing 1.5 hours later at the hospital.

Not drugged, not choked. Said both happened.


Is this another case of, didn't want daddy to find out how she really operated.... Claimed to be virgin, Catholic, claimed she had previously given up drinking for Lent. As a catholic she believes abortion is a sin and didn't want to take a day after pill, said she can't present herself a virgin for her husband when she marries now because of this.

Man this kinda smells now.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Malbec said:

---

riflebear said:

---

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article223044915.html

---

Quote:

---

"...no evidence of injury in a hospital photograph taken 1 1/2 hours after the alleged incident.

There is no DNA evidence linking Mr. Anderson to this incident."

---

---

Yea, read that entire thing. The Anderson guy should have demanded a trial, the dude is now branded for life. One person said she "stalked" him at the party. That they were kissing passionately and grinding all over each other witnessed by 100+ people. She was smiling and laughing 1.5 hours later at the hospital.

Not drugged, not choked. Said both happened.


Is this another case of, didn't want daddy to find out how she really operated.... Claimed to be virgin, Catholic, claimed she had previously given up drinking for Lent. As a catholic she believes abortion is a sin and didn't want to take a day after pill, said she can't present herself a virgin for her husband when she marries now because of this.

Man this kinda smells now.

---

Fishy?

Forest Bueller said:

---

Malbec said:

---

riflebear said:

---

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article223044915.html

---

Quote:

---

"...no evidence of injury in a hospital photograph taken 1 1/2 hours after the alleged incident.

There is no DNA evidence linking Mr. Anderson to this incident."

---

---

Yea, read that entire thing. The Anderson guy should have demanded a trial, the dude is now branded for life. One person said she "stalked" him at the party. That they were kissing passionately and grinding all over each other witnessed by 100+ people. She was smiling and laughing 1.5 hours later at the hospital.

Not drugged, not choked. Said both happened.


Is this another case of, didn't want daddy to find out how she really operated.... Claimed to be virgin, Catholic, claimed she had previously given up drinking for Lent. As a catholic she believes abortion is a sin and didn't want to take a day after pill, said she can't present herself a virgin for her husband when she marries now because of this.

Man this kinda smells now.

---

Yep...said yes and then regretted it. She should be prosecuted now.

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, before she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

You worded that poorly. A woman can say no at any point. Her wanting him, even making out with him very passionately, does not mean a rape can not occur. Not speaking of you, but plenty around here have a hard time with that.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, before she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

You worded that poorly. A woman can say no at any point. Her wanting him, even making out with him very passionately, does not mean a rape can not occur. Not speaking of you, but plenty around here have a hard time with that.

---

Yes, I worded that poorly, sorry.. I meant wanted it, did it, then after the fact of the act decided she didn't like what she did. So then she "didn't" want it to have happened. Maybe that is more correctly worded.

Of course at any point in an encounter, once someone decides they don't want to do something, then it should end.

I thought the campus rumor was "so are we boyfriend / girlfriend now"?. He replied "uh, no". She got pissed.

Did anyone come to her defense? How many came to his defense?

PacificBear said:

---

I thought the campus rumor was "so are we boyfriend / girlfriend now"?. He replied "uh, no". She got pissed.

Did anyone come to her defense? How many came to his defense?

---

There were also "campus rumors" that a certain girl who had a train pulled on her was all aboard said act. We later found out this was just a self serving CYA by the engineers.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Malbec said:

---

riflebear said:

---

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article223044915.html

---

Quote:

---

"...no evidence of injury in a hospital photograph taken 1 1/2 hours after the alleged incident.

There is no DNA evidence linking Mr. Anderson to this incident."

---

---

Yea, read that entire thing. The Anderson guy should have demanded a trial, the dude is now branded for life. One person said she "stalked" him at the party. That they were kissing passionately and grinding all over each other witnessed by 100+ people. She was smiling and laughing 1.5 hours later at the hospital.

Not drugged, not choked. Said both happened.


Is this another case of, didn't want daddy to find out how she really operated.... Claimed to be virgin, Catholic, claimed she had previously given up drinking for Lent. As a catholic she believes abortion is a sin and didn't want to take a day after pill, said she can't present herself a virgin for her husband when she marries now because of this.

Man this kinda smells now.

---

Wouldn't this qualify as "hearsay"?

Keyser Soze said:

---

PacificBear said:

---

I thought the campus rumor was "so are we boyfriend / girlfriend now"?. He replied "uh, no". She got pissed.

Did anyone come to her defense? How many came to his defense?

---

There were also "campus rumors" that a certain girl who had a train pulled on her was all aboard said act. We later found out this was just a self serving CYA by the engineers.

---

I would really like to see the phrase "pull a train" removed from the public lexicon.

I don't think I've ever met a woman who would knowingly consent to that. It's like what happened to the "comfort women" the Japanese forced into sexual slavery or the women in Mexican brothels trafficked by cartels for 5-minute sex in horse stalls.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Malbec said:

---

riflebear said:

---

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article223044915.html

---

Quote:

---

"...no evidence of injury in a hospital photograph taken 1 1/2 hours after the alleged incident.

There is no DNA evidence linking Mr. Anderson to this incident."

---

---

Yea, read that entire thing. The Anderson guy should have demanded a trial, the dude is now branded for life. One person said she "stalked" him at the party. That they were kissing passionately and grinding all over each other witnessed by 100+ people. She was smiling and laughing 1.5 hours later at the hospital.

Not drugged, not choked. Said both happened.


Is this another case of, didn't want daddy to find out how she really operated.... Claimed to be virgin, Catholic, claimed she had previously given up drinking for Lent. As a catholic she believes abortion is a sin and didn't want to take a day after pill, said she can't present herself a virgin for her husband when she marries now because of this.

Man this kinda smells now.

---

Wouldn't this qualify as "hearsay"?

---

Which part? The first paragraph, was in the lawyers statement, test came back, not drugged, neck wasn't injured from Hospital observation.

Second paragraph was from a statement she made.

1) Claimed virginity
2) Said she had been observing Lent and not drinking, before.
3) She stated she didn't want to take the "day after" pill because as a Catholic believes abortion is a sin.
4) Said she can never marry as a virgin now, because of the assault.

Nothing wrong with the statements she made, if she were raped she would lament about all of the above, although only an idiotic man would hold this against her about the virginity thing. If it were rape, totally not her fault, if was from desire, everybody does things they shouldn't, it would take a shallow man to hold that against her.

I was amazed at the no jail time, non sexual assault agreement. Now I think I am seeing how there was no confidence in a conviction. It was a very blurry situation.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

I don't know anyone who is pushing a narrative that men accused of sexual assault are guilty until proven innocent. For a long time, women who brought charges of rape or assault were disbelieved, disrepsected and ****-shamed, and that's bad. It would, however, be equally bad to condemn men accused of assault based on flimsy or non-existent evidence if they maintain they're innocent--and actually are. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

"Lots of people" ARE IDIOTS. They can barely chew gum and walk, let alone understand the nuances of the judicial system. Do you know how much it costs in legal defense fees to endure a trial? Do you know how much it costs the county?

The outrage is nothing more than ignorance of the layman.

No doubt there is a lot of faux outrage out there in the snowflake world ..... rape is something that deserves outrage ..... rush to judgement is a different issue

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

I don't know anyone who is pushing a narrative that men accused of sexual assault are guilty until proven innocent. For a long time, women who brought charges of rape or assault were disbelieved, disrepsected and ****-shamed, and that's bad. It would, however, be equally bad to condemn men accused of assault based on flimsy or non-existent evidence if they maintain they're innocent--and actually are. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

actions speak louder than words. Social media screams that a sexual allegation is equal to guilt. It is a mob mentality because when most are confronted 1v1 , they will back off. There is however a feeling of safety in numbers for the mob members when they are all shouting together. Truth be damned many times.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

"Lots of people" ARE IDIOTS. They can barely chew gum and walk, let alone understand the nuances of the judicial system. Do you know how much it costs in legal defense fees to endure a trial? Do you know how much it costs the county?

The outrage is nothing more than ignorance of the layman.

---

If we don't have enough money to try men accused of rape, maybe we should revisit how much we spend to arrest and incarcerate people for having a joint in their pocket or people who get 3 strikes on minor drug offenses.

Violent assautls shoult be investigated and prosecuted. Rape is a violenct assault. Prosecuting violence crime should definitely be a higher budget priority than prosecuting drug possession offenses. Plead THOSE out with slap-on-the-wrist consequences.

Keyser Soze said:

---

No doubt there is a lot of faux outrage out there in the snowflake world ..... rape is something that deserves outrage ..... rush to judgement is a different issue

---

Nolo contendere is not an admission of guilt. So if you're implying that he plead guilty, that is false. I'm not here to defend the accused, because for all I know he might have sexually assaulted someone.

He plead to lesser charges and sometimes that's simply best for all involved. Right and wrong is relative in these scenarios and, unless you were actually there, pointless to discuss.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

"Lots of people" ARE IDIOTS. They can barely chew gum and walk, let alone understand the nuances of the judicial system. Do you know how much it costs in legal defense fees to endure a trial? Do you know how much it costs the county?

The outrage is nothing more than ignorance of the layman.

---

If we don't have enough money to try men accused of rape, maybe we should revisit how much we spend to arrest and incarcerate people for having a joint in their pocket or people who get 3 strikes on minor drug offenses.

Violent assautls shoult be investigated and prosecuted. Rape is a violenct assault. Prosecuting violence crime should definitely be a higher budget priority than prosecuting drug possession offenses. Plead THOSE out with slap-on-the-wrist consequences.

---

I'm not talking about drugs. Stay on topic. The prosecution made a prudent move based on what they knew. That kid was going to skate and they knew it.

P.S. - They did investigate. That's why they offered a plea bargain.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

I don't know anyone who is pushing a narrative that men accused of sexual assault are guilty until proven innocent. For a long time, women who brought charges of rape or assault were disbelieved, disrepsected and ****-shamed, and that's bad. It would, however, be equally bad to condemn men accused of assault based on flimsy or non-existent evidence if they maintain they're innocent--and actually are. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

actions speak louder than words. Social media screams that a sexual allegation is equal to guilt. It is a mob mentality because when most are confronted 1v1 , they will back off. There is however a feeling of safety in numbers for the mob members when they are all shouting together. Truth be damned many times.

---

Do you really care what Joe Blow or Jane Doe on whatever Social Media platform says?

Although Donald Trump does seem to make policy and personnel announcements regularly via Twitter. How low we have fallen.

I am stating rape is really bad - period.

I am aware of this case. The waters are certainly muddy enough that the plea is not as outrageous as the predictable public outrage would have us think. That said, no idea if he really raped her or not.

Social justice warrioring in the digital age is a BLIGHT on society. The uneducated and unwashed masses have no business wielding that amount of power.

Jinx2, here is a scenario for you. It is as extreme as I can think of for now.

In some weird parallel universe, you have been accused of jaywalking. You didn't do it and there is absolutely no proof that you did. However, 2 months ago, JINKS2 was accused of jaywalking where there was video evidence of it occurring. JINKS2 got off because of some lame technicality. In fact, JINKS1, 2 and 3 have all gotten off for the same charge. The public at large is outraged because all of the accusations of jaywalking being committed by all these JINKS#.

Now here you are facing the same accusation. You are Jinx and have no affiliation with JINKS. The jaywalking charge in this weird, parallel universe is 5 years in the state system and you must register for the rest of your life as a serial jaywalker making employment next to impossible. The DA says she'll reduce the charge to spitting on the sidewalk which is $25 fine. Do you take the offer or do you risk your future employment?

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

"Lots of people" ARE IDIOTS. They can barely chew gum and walk, let alone understand the nuances of the judicial system. Do you know how much it costs in legal defense fees to endure a trial? Do you know how much it costs the county?

The outrage is nothing more than ignorance of the layman.

---

If we don't have enough money to try men accused of rape, maybe we should revisit how much we spend to arrest and incarcerate people for having a joint in their pocket or people who get 3 strikes on minor drug offenses.

Violent assautls shoult be investigated and prosecuted. Rape is a violenct assault. Prosecuting violence crime should definitely be a higher budget priority than prosecuting drug possession offenses. Plead THOSE out with slap-on-the-wrist consequences.

---

I'm not talking about drugs. Stay on topic. The prosecution made a prudent move based on what they knew. That kid was going to skate and they knew it.

P.S. - They did investigate. That's why they offered a plea bargain.

---

You said one reason offering a plea deal made sense was that it was too expensive to try every case.

I suggested that, if we devoted more resources to prosecuting violent crime and less to prosecute non-violent offenses like drug possession, we'd have more money to devote to investigating and prosecuting violent crimes. That's a valid point for this discussion.

I'm sure they did investigate, but it sounds like this case comes down to a he said/she said. But Baylor saw fit to kick Mr. Anderson out, and his frat kicked him out to. There's enough smoke there to suspect a fire.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Jinx2, here is a scenario for you. It is as extreme as I can think of for now.

In some weird parallel universe, you have been accused of jaywalking. You didn't do it and there is absolutely no proof that you did. However, 2 months ago, JINKS2 was accused of jaywalking where there was video evidence of it occurring. JINKS2 got off because of some lame technicality. In fact, JINKS1, 2 and 3 have all gotten off for the same charge. The public at large is outraged because all of the accusations of jaywalking being committed by all these JINKS#.

Now here you are facing the same accusation. You are Jinx and have no affiliation with JINKS. The jaywalking charge in this weird, parallel universe is 5 years in the state system and you must register for the rest of your life as a serial jaywalker making employment next to impossible. The DA says she'll reduce the charge to spitting on the sidewalk which is $25 fine. Do you take the offer or do you risk your future employment?

---

In no universe is a rape charge comparable to jaywalking.

And I'm not questioning Anderson's wisdom in taking the plea deal; he'd have been a nut not to.

I'm questioning the generosity of the plea offer.

Perhaps the D.A.'s office thought he'd suffered enough, having been booted out of Baylor and his frat. Neither of which require proof of criminal conduct; both orgs can just decide you're way more of a liability than an asset and kick you out.

I think that's what the judge in the Brock Turner case thought, too. He bought the "terrible consequences for 20 minutes of action" argument advanced by Turner's Dad, obviously a terrific role model.

That judge, Aaron Persky, got voted out of office.

I'd once have cited this as a good argument for appointed, rather than elected, judges. IMO, no judge deserves to be ousted for one bad decision--only if a pattern emerges (and there may have been one in his case).

But hat was before the GOP stacked the judicial appointment decks and refused to even talk to Merrick Garland.

So, McLennon County voters, have at him!

Jinx 2 said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

"Lots of people" ARE IDIOTS. They can barely chew gum and walk, let alone understand the nuances of the judicial system. Do you know how much it costs in legal defense fees to endure a trial? Do you know how much it costs the county?

The outrage is nothing more than ignorance of the layman.

---

If we don't have enough money to try men accused of rape, maybe we should revisit how much we spend to arrest and incarcerate people for having a joint in their pocket or people who get 3 strikes on minor drug offenses.

Violent assautls shoult be investigated and prosecuted. Rape is a violenct assault. Prosecuting violence crime should definitely be a higher budget priority than prosecuting drug possession offenses. Plead THOSE out with slap-on-the-wrist consequences.

---

I'm not talking about drugs. Stay on topic. The prosecution made a prudent move based on what they knew. That kid was going to skate and they knew it.

P.S. - They did investigate. That's why they offered a plea bargain.

---

You said one reason offering a plea deal made sense was that it was too expensive to try every case.

I suggested that, if we devoted more resources to prosecuting violence crime and less to prosecute non-violence offenses like drug possession, we'd have more money to devote to investigating and prosecuting violent crimes. That's a valid point for this discussion.

I'm sure they did investigate, but it sounds like this case comes down to a he said/she said. But Baylor saw fit to kick Mr. Anderson out, and his frat kicked him out to. There's enough smoke there to suspect a fire.

---

The manpower and time allocated for prosecuting minor drug possession is a drop in the bucket compared to the tracking/hunting of violent criminals and putting them behind bars. You cannot conflate the two scenarios.

Baylor and the fraternity extracted a highly volatile, but easily fixable problem because they could (whatever minor issues fit in the agenda) and because they didn't want the negative publicity. Smoke and fire are terms used by people who are easily swayed by preconceptions.

We're beginning to ebb back toward the Salem mentality as a society. It's unfortunate.

Jinx 2 said:

---

jimdue said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

If you did it you definately take a plea that does not require you to registar as a sex offender. The stakes are very high even if your hand is strong.

---

If he did it, he got away with a crime pretty much.

If she was all over him and wanted it, did it, then after the fact decided she "didn't" want it, then he is falsely convicted of a crime.

---

Is there ever a point where a man is responsible for keeping his pants zipped?

Or is the woman always the final "no."

Men would benefit by understanding that it might be in THEIR best interest to say no. Regardless of how women behave.

---

Yes absolutely, once a young woman I knew from a young singles Bible class mainly college aged, who I suppose must have found me attractive, showed up at my apartment at about 11 pm unannounced and I not expecting her.

After a few minutes of small talk, she decided she was going to get her some. She was beautiful and I was attracted to her, but there was all kinds of wrong with the situation. I won't use the term fighting her off, but that's what happened, she finally gave up and after a good bit of histronics about what she "needed" I got her to leave.

It shook me up pretty good, as I called an older male friend from church right away, to tell him what just happened. I knew her parents, but wasn't about to tell them about this.

Two days later I went to the Bible study, and was met outside the door by a friend, who told me, ##### , said she went to my apartment for help and that I had tried to rape her. She told that to the director of of church's "Bible Chair" or young adult singles group. She made it clear she "wasn't sure what happened as she blacked out and couldn't remember everything".

It was my word against her, and in the 80's, thankfully it all ended right there.

Girl had the nerve to show up at my apartment a couple of weeks later, saying we needed to "finish" something. I told her to leave and, you ain't coming into my apt. ever again.

She thought I was going to "tell" on her, she preempted by making up some story and putting me in serious jeopardy. You should have seen the looks on the folks faces in that Bible class when I walked in. I didn't walk away like a chicken ***** I defended myself strongly right from the get go.

But, yes, men should be very cautious, dealing with sexual matters, actually they should wait until they are married to have sex,

---

This whole narrative being pushed by the left and so called activists like Brenda Tracy that all SA allegations must be accepted as true is and has been total BS. If you are not ready to hit the streets with the pitch forks before the validity of the claim has been properly investigated, then you must be anti woman and pro rape.

---

I don't know anyone who is pushing a narrative that men accused of sexual assault are guilty until proven innocent. For a long time, women who brought charges of rape or assault were disbelieved, disrepsected and ****-shamed, and that's bad. It would, however, be equally bad to condemn men accused of assault based on flimsy or non-existent evidence if they maintain they're innocent--and actually are. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But lots of people--I hope from all ends of the political spectrum--believe that when a man pleads guilty or "no contest" to rape charges--as Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist and Mr. Anderson did--the consequences should be more severe than probation and a slap on the wrist. At least Brock Turner is registered as a sex offender, but he was caught in the act of assaulting an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses. Anderson's case is more of a he said/she said.

The outrage in both cases resulted from the court-ordered consequences after Turner pleaded guilty and Anderson pleaded no contest to criminal charges.

---

Well of course Brock Turner should have gotten 20 years in prison. He was freaking guilty.

The other guy plead to a charge lesser than sexual assault. He was wanting to make sure he was 1) free, 2) unmarked as a sex offender. Not sure Anderson was guilty. It was a very muddled situation. There was reasonable doubt.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I'm not talking about drugs. Stay on topic. The prosecution made a prudent move based on what they knew. That kid was going to skate and they knew it.

Quote:

---

P.S. - They did investigate. That's why they offered a plea bargain.

---

You said one reason offering a plea deal made sense was that it was too expensive to try every case.

I suggested that, if we devoted more resources to prosecuting violent crime and less to prosecute non-violent offenses like drug possession, we'd have more money to devote to investigating and prosecuting violent crimes. That's a valid point for this discussion.

I'm sure they did investigate, but it sounds like this case comes down to a he said/she said. But Baylor saw fit to kick Mr. Anderson out, and his frat kicked him out to. There's enough smoke there to suspect a fire.

---

And you are wrong again. This case came down to she said something that was proven false (the falsity of which was corroborated by eye-witnesses) , and the other things she said couldn't be proven true either. That doesn't even reach the level of he said/she said.