Finally somebody besides me compares the Duke accused to the Scottsboro boys. There are differences: the Duke boys are assholes, and they are also rich, so the can probably save themselves. (Though when the two strippers sue in civil court, their families may be much less rich.) Naturally I do not care when Bad Things happend to Assholes, and I assume that the Duke players are Assholes. They are certainly not the sort of people that I socialize with, or ever socialize with.
In the 1970s, these players would have been white racists, and they would have been the very sorts of crackers who beat me and my brother, vandalized our home and car, and terrorized us for years for the sin my parents committed by welcoming our neighborhood's first, and all subsequent, black families. In the 2000s, at least a few of these boys has at least some small amount of racism, as indicated by the "cotton shirt" remark that one of them used in the money argument with the strippers, which featured a trading of profanities and racial slurs. But it appears also true that most of these boys are not racists, as indicated by the non-white students who have stepped forward identifying themselves as their friends. And Duke itself -- presumably a bastion of racism in the 1970s -- isn't racist, as a third of its students qualify as non-white, as do 12% who qualify as "African-American".
If a black stripper can avoid arrest on a petty charge by successfully issuing a fake rape charge against three rich white boys, what chance do the rest of us have? How many convicted rapists languish in prison today (or on sex offender registries) because they lacked the financial resources to counter a fake rape charge? Who will be the defenders of tomarrow's Scottsboro Boys -- who may be poor and black! -- given who has has gone on record either defending the false Duke accuser, or refusing to form and express their own opinion? If defending these rich assholes today means a better hope for tomarrow's Scottsboro Boys, I'm willing to do that.
8 comments:
http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm
Her ex-husband says that he believes her. It will be fascinating when he takes the stand (if she doesn't drop the case citing threats to her life) what he'll say about her previous allegation a few years ago that he beat her and dragged her through the woods. If this story is true, he will either have to say that she lied about that, or that he beat her.
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/
Looks like we won't get to test the voracity of speculation about a "date rape" drug being used (unlikely given that the accuser has "100%" and "90%" identifications, which would seem impossible if under the influence of a drug designed to make you forget): the accuser refused to take a drug test. Why would she do this? Well, she was trying to avoid arrest for "public intoxification", so we might assume she wanted to avoid providing evidence of illegal drug use.
And finally a direct and factual discussion of accusations that some of the assholes used racial slurs: one of their attorneys says that they were just responding in kind to the racial slurs (documented by the same witnesses, but rarely documented in press accounts) hurled at them by the strippers.
Does putting rich white assholes in prison for something that they didn't do help avenge the Scottsboro boys? Or does it make it harder to protect the next Scottsboro boys? And will it make it harder to believe the next ACCURATE rape accuser?
Something good that could come out of this: the rich assholes will spend a bunch of their money to get justice for themselves, and the case will provide a popular example for the rest of us that women do lie about rape, perhaps saving some poor bastards some money in the future.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/14687401.htm
Accuser claims "rape" after being "involuntarily committed" to a drug-abuse facility. What would the legal implications have been for her? Why did no drug test get taken? Did she refuse?
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137836390349&path=!localnews&s=1037645509099
Could such a thing ever happen to some black assholes, rich or otherwise? If it did, who would be in a position to defend them? Surely nobody who's defended the Duke accuser.
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-739040.html
I wonder what Nadir would say if a white stripper/prostitute 8 days after crying rape (a cry that saves her from arrest for public intoxification and a drug test that designed to identify illegal drug use) doesn't ID a black guy in a photo lineup, but then two weeks later does "if he had a mustache". Actually, I don't wonder: Nadir would recognize that an injustice is occuring. But if this happens to a black guy in they future, Nadir is duty-bound by his own words now to keep his mouth closed, except to describe the accuser as a "single mom forced to strip to pay bills."
Many of the irrational apologists for the stripper-accuser express their "belief" that the DA has "flipped" one of the laccrosse players. But where is the evidence for this? Would these people have such a "belief" if the accuser was white and the defendant a black asshole (like Kobe)? Of course not. This article shows that the laccrosse players are all hanging together, and that the DA's evidence which he has had to disclose contains no such "flip".
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/14689640.htm
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-739040.html
Either the police violated required procedures, or the DA is holding back documentation, which violates the disclosure laws. Either way, yet more ammo for the defense. When such an injustice later befalls a black person, who will have the moral authority to speak up? Nobody who is silent here, or who is defending the false accuser.
Post a Comment