Bio not provided
I'm sure you want the last word but as far as I'm concerned this conversation is over. If defending a rape victim is wrong then I don't want to be right.
1 year, 2 months ago on Jameis Winston walks away from interview with Heather Cox
@youngexec Sluts are less likely to be raped then? Having sex with 2 different people makes you a slut?
@youngexec Wow. That's hilarious. So sluts can't be raped? And having sex with 2 different people makes you a slut? I refuse to believe someone that stupid can hold down a job.
@youngexec You honestly believe that the prosecutor's personal belief is what made him make the decision on whether or not to charge? In a profession where your success rate is everything, prosecutors only try cases they think they can win. He said so himself: he didn't think he could get a conviction. I believe that Winston's teammate's statements were the crucial piece of evidence in this case, but do I think they would be as powerful in a civil case, when the burden of proof is lower? No.
It's politically correct to refer to a victim of a crime as a victim, yes, but not if no crime takes place. How is it PC to not pursue charges vs her?Plain and simple: the decision on whether or not to charge only had to do with what they could prove, not with what they believe.
@youngexec You really don't get it, do you? If the prosecutor thought Winston was beyond a doubt innocent, he wouldn't still be referring to the young lady as "the victim," and he would have filed wrongful accusation charges on her. Prosecutors file cases they think they can win, not when they think the accused is guilty. Civil cases are separate from criminal ones. They often have different outcomes, due to the lower standard of evidence required.
Less likely than if the facts were different? That's not what I'm arguing. Yes, there are things that could be changed that would make rape more likely. That doesn't mean that it is unlikely that rape happened. Winston wasn't charged because the prosecutor didn't think he could get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, not because he didn't think Winston was guilty. In a civil case (which is how this thread started) the proof only needs to be beyond the balance of probabilities. Do you understand? Not being roofied does not significantly shift that balance, because many rapes occur without roofies. Ditto for previous sex, drink sharing, and accompanying people to their apartment.
@youngexec Good. Keep being vague and don't make any real points.
@youngexec Likelihood. Are you saying that the majority of rapes happen from roofies or being too drunk to consent? Because I would love to see that data. And I would love to know the relevance because that is not what is being alleged.
@youngexec Rape can occur without being roofied or being too drunk to give consent, so I'm not sure what your point is.
@youngexec Having sex with another person: not related. Each sexual event is an independent event. Having a low BAC: rules out inability to consent, that's it. Sharing drinks: makes it less likely that she was roofied? That's it. Followed a man back to his apartment: if she said stop at any point in the process, and he didn't, it's rape so irrelevant.
@youngexec Please explain how any of those things make rape any less likely.
@Dez E. I didn't say that Winston's DNA proved he raped her, nor did I say that the other DNA shouldn't be investigated. However, now that it has been investigated, and there is a logical reason for it being there, I don't see how it would impact a civil case. Maybe I was being unclear, it is important to investigate, but the results of that investigation don't point towards or away from a rape.
@youngexec The criminal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The civil standard is a balance of probabilities. Let me spell it out for you: it's possible to be raped after having sex with another person at another time, it's possible to be raped with a low BAC, it's possible to be raped after sharing drinks, and it's possible to be raped after accompanying a man to his apartment at night. Please tell me what I'm missing.
@Dez E. None of that explains why the presence of her ex-boyfriend's semen means she wasn't raped.
@youngexec The male who contributed the other DNA sample was not there. What else needs to be explained? How does that have anything to do with what happened that night? Since she had sex with more than one person she's a slut so she couldn't possibly have been raped?
@youngexec Please explain. How does sexual activity with someone else at a different time mean she wasn't raped?
@SpearFish @BenWinoker I read it, and it still doesn't make sense. The second DNA sample has absolutely nothing to do with what happened that night.
@SpearFish The second DNA sample doesn't mean anything. They weren't found in the same place and in no way do they mean that she had sexual activity with two people on the same night.
@Chris Hertz But hey, if you're really pulling for that Washington State - Utah Title game, more power to you.
1 year, 3 months ago on Fox's Eddie George goes crazy while watch Ohio State-Michigan
@Chris Hertz You just referenced a SOS ranking created by a computer system that ranks OSU #3, behind only FSU and NIU...