2006-06-29
At the start, I presumed they were guilty
Nadir appears to be the only socio-political blabber mouth in America who has not formed and articulated an opinion on this matter. All the anti-accuser pundits started by believing the charges and lambasting the rich white guys. Tom and Six, why haven't y'all expressed an opinion on this? Do y'all share Nadir's "no look, no speak" policy on this one topic in the national headlines?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Oh, I've formed an opinion, but rape is a touchy subject, and the circumstances of this case are especially tenuous. Therefore, I choose not to debate this case.
Rape is generally a "he said/she said" crime. In this case, the lacrosse players will stick together no matter what, so it's an unfair situation for the black, single mother, stripper who is making the accusations. Because of her background and lifestyle, she would be in a tough position even if it was just one dude.
Folks tend to victimize the accuser in these cases whether they deserve it or not. But I'm not going to voice my opinion on the case.
All the legal analysts initially sided with the accuser, and they all had a very different opinion about the players "sticking together": if there really was a rape, it would have been very unlikely that 25 non-rapist buddies would stick together with such high stakes. This is why as the DA stood by his case after the negative DNA evidence (this is not a case without DNA evidence; this is a case with NEGATIVE DNA evidence), the analysts who did continue sticking by the DA expected that at least one of the players had "flipped".
One of the events that caused so many of the remaining pro-DA legal analysts to flip was the discovery's lack of a lacrosse player prosecution witness.
This case exemplifies how easy it is for even a lone stripper/hooker/druggie to successfully bring a rape charge, even with 30 guys all telling the same innocent story. Imagine if she had her lie straight!
It is true that in such cases that the defense attornies will always attack the accuser. But only if the accuser is lying will such counter-attacks stick. Before her lies got exposed, every TV commentator made a point of stating that her lowly status did not and should not matter, and they all excoriated only the players. These commentators didn't start denegrating the accuser until it became obvious that she was lying. Her public supporters are villians here because they are making it harder for her to quietly retract her accusations, and they are the ones provided the incentive for the DA to procede as he did.
I find it inconcievable that Nadir would remain quite if some white hooker druggie single mom college student were making these accusations against a bunch of rich young black asshole frat boys. This accuser's problem in this case isn't that she's a hooker and drug user, or that she's a single mom; it's that she's lying. If she really was raped as she described, it would have left the evidence that would have all the TV commentators supporting her, and nobody would care that she was a hooker or that she had sex with X number of guys 48 hours prior to the event, etc.
Nadir, I will certainly remember your position when this happens to some black guys. And when the conservative TV blabber mouths all support those black guys, I will remind you of their consistency.
"One of the events that caused so many of the remaining pro-DA legal analysts to flip was the discovery's lack of a lacrosse player prosecution witness."
Of those 25 players, it is probable that some did not know about a rape if it occurred. However, it is well within the philosophy of teams, fraternities and the like to promote a "stick together" attitude among its members. If none of them is willing to snitch, the accuser will stand less of a chance. They know that. They can wait it out, and perhaps someone's conscience will get the best of them 20 years from now after the statute of limitations is up.
How do you know the accuser is lying? How do you know the lacrosse players are telling the truth? Were you there? No. You weren't. But you're willing to play judge and jury along with the rest of these punk-dits.
The reason I won't voice my opinion on the case is because the accuser's story is shaky. There are too many variables. However, I think it is highly likely that she is telling the truth. I'm not going to be able to form a definite opinion because I wasn't in the house. But I don't imagine that we will ever know the whole truth.
Please remember my position on this. It will make it easier for me to take the same position when a rape charge is brought against a group of black players. And if those black players are able to afford the best attorneys in the country, I will stay out of it. If they can't I will say that they deserve strong legal representation for a good defense just like the white boys.
But unlike you, I will admit that I was not there, and I don't know what happened. And I won't look like an idiot by calling the accuser a liar when I really don't know what happened.
"If she really was raped as she described, it would have left the evidence that would have all the TV commentators supporting her, and nobody would care that she was a hooker or that she had sex with X number of guys 48 hours prior to the event, etc."
Bullshit. Isn't this how Kobe got off?
In rape cases the accuser is always attacked and her sexual history is always paraded in front to the media in an effort to taint the jury pool. It doesn't matter whether she had sex 48 hours ago or 48 months ago, the accuser is blamed for wearing revealing clothing or fuck-me pumps. She is blamed for being in that situation in the first place.
Nadir: You are just intellectually garbled on this issue. The only opinionated person I know who refused to take an opinion, and this is the only topic on which you take this opinion. And you use logic to justify this position that you only apply to this single incident.
Did the Scottsboro Boys rape that white girl who accused them? You weren't there!
Where you "there" when the Bushies constructed their case for invading Iraq? Then how do you know that they lied? If you don't know if the Duke accuser lied, how do you know that the Bushies lied?
How do you know that John Kerry didn't commit the acts claimed of him by the Swift Boat guys? You weren't there! So how can you oppose them, if you are unwilling to oppose the Duke DA? You weren't there!
What about the Haymarket bombers? Or Socco and Vinzetti? Were they guilty? Or Hurricane Carter?
Were you "there" when oil company officials conspired to raise prices? Then how do you know that they did?
How do you even know that US Marines didn't save the life of the Hatian president Arastide? You weren't there!
I am only as certain about this accuser lying as I am about anything else that I read in the newspaper. And on many matters here I am 100% certain of my opinion, such as the propriety of the DA in speaking as he did prior to the indictments.
The only way you are going to keep your mouth shut and withhold an opinion if this happens to some black guys is that you have backed yourself into a corner here. And if the DNA evidence had contradicted the white boys' stories, and if the accuser's story was consistent, and then if the DA dropped the case, you would use this as sure-fire evidence of white racism in the US. And you'd have on your side all the conservative cable blowhards who originally supported this girl, but who have changed their minds because of the emerging facts.
I am very disappointed in you, Nadir, that you would let the US criminal system proceed without your scrutiny and analysis. "You weren't there." What a cowardly, lame, and disengenious position, what a specially constructed bunker you've created for yourself in this one case. Is it that hard to admit that a poor black girl has done something so wrong that you have to take sides with some rich white assholes? Can't you just justify this position by re-assuring yourself that this'll help protect in the future people who you don't inherently dispise?
Oh, you're sure some couragous socio-political commentator, sitting this one out.
"Please remember my position on this." I still can't figure it out. You won't take a position because "you weren't there."
Neither was the DA. And neither were the police, the judge, nor will any of the jurors. Neither were the voters who decide on the DA. They all have to make an opinion.
You are a citizen. You fancy yourself a "community activist." Do you care how it is that police and DAs handle crime accusations? What is your opinion on what it is that you *can* know?
Given that the criminal justice system is -- and must be -- run by people who were absent from all alleged crime scenes, do you believe that the DA (who wasn't there!) should have brought this to a grand jurgy (comprised also of people absent from the scene)? Do you think that he should have presented to the grand jury all of the evidence, not just evidence favoring the accusation?
Do you think that rape cases should proceed with "community activists" closig their eyes, ears, and mouths?
Post a Comment