Speaking from the perspective of someone with a decent amount of accreditation, I'll bring up education, if you don't mind. What is your field? I ask this because your methods at arriving at conclusions would not, that I know of, pass mettle in any educational institution I've ever heard of. You have made broad unsubstantiated statements of fact about an entire deomgraphic, mistake one. You have followed that up by defending it based on a limited case study, in this case your own experience, mistake two. Then you ascribed your broad generalizations to a specific instance, upon which you based a conclusion about the actions of an individual; not a tendancy or a probablity even, but a conclusion. Mistake three. I honestly hope that you avoided this kind of support for positions when in the pursuit of your academic standing. And as for her mental state, do you realize the ramifications of sutomatically dismissing this girl's claims, even under the auspices of legal necessity, based on same? It would mean, point blank, that any person with a history of emotional tribulation ( which would include the majority of humans, depending on time frame and definition, but at the very least a large deomgraphic indeed) can be raped as long as there are no witnesses. All the defense would have to do, according to your theory, would be to call it consentual and point to the victim's emotional history.
MacBeth, When I say Kobe is innocent, I am referring to the fact that the prosecution will have a hell of a hard time proving otherwise. Its almost a certainty that Kobe will come out of this "not guilty". All the information that has surfaced thus far, points in favor of the defense. As time goes on, the pendulum will continue swinging in the same direction. I say all of this because I refuse to side with the prosecution team until they can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Kobe Bryant is guilty of Sexaul Assault. Until that point, Im siding with the defense. Im going to medical school next year...deciding between Baylor college of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, UCSF, and University of Michigan.
I think before anyone makes a judgement they should spend some time on the sexual assault hotline at the local women's center. Only after this experience will you realize the severity of the charges and will hopefully stop trivializing it with ridiculous comments.
There is a world of difference between standing behind the assumption of innocence, which I support, and charecterizing the alleged victim in a negative and offensive light in order to support the defendant's innocence, which you did. I agree that defense lawyers will try and do that; to an extent that is their job. But to become a proponent of same, in advance, with neither a vested interest nor much information to back it up would lead on to believe that there is a lot more invective behind your position than the burden of proof.
My sister's are defense lawyers...I have the same mentality. I will go after the accuser until they can prove to me that they are credible sources. Until now, the girl has nothing to help her case. It may be wrong, but thats the way I roll. It may be offensive to her, but I put her in a position where she has to prove to me that she is right. Otherwise, she is just tarnishing the image of a celebrity. Although, in this case, I dont mind Kobe's image being tarnished because he is a fool for cheating on his wife. And the fact that he has a baby daughter pisses me off even more. But, this case is about sexual assault and not about whether or not Kobe is a good husband/father.
Apparently she does have something to help her case. There is enough evidence to at least make the prosecution feel some semblance of confidence that they can make their case. If that evidence did not exist, charges still would not have been filed.
I fear for the mental health of your patients. May none of them ever be rape victims. Thank goodness, you will be required to take psychology courses. Listen well and take good notes.
They had a case before Kobe admitted to having sex with her. That was their only proof and they were hoping that Kobe would continue denying any sexual relations.
My father is a psychiatrist. No way Id go into that field. Its all about Orthopedic surgery and sports medicine.
Kobe did not admit to anything until after they charged him. He had plenty of opportunities to say he had sex with her prior to charges being filed. Since they seemingly took DNA samples the night of the alleged rape he should know that they at least had him "dead to rights" on marital infidelity. In other words, had he not been charged, do you honestly think he would have attended a press conference to announce his infidelity?
So, can I take it from this that you are acknowledging a prejudice? Seriously, rez...I don't recall ever having disagreed with you to any extent before, so this is not personal for me, but you are making links here that do not exist in and of themselves. You are taking assumption of innocence to mean that the victim is the one with the burden of proof, not true. The prosecutors are. The victim, or alleged victim, is in essence merely a witness to the crime. That is not to say that she is automatically telling the truth, nor that she is objective, but to say that she has to prove anything is incorrect. You are also pre-supposing a level of proof that would, short of witnesses or confessions, make prosecuting any rapist impossible. I agree that a case demands more than just the word of an accuser, but this is not a black and white issue, thanks to material evidence. But finally your reasoning for supporting Bryant and the assumption of innocence does not explain your portrayal of the victim, nor of her demographic, nor does it support your leap from your opinion to conclusion. That is what has offended so many, not your belief in the burden of proof.
This seems like a pretty obvious attempt to slander the woman, with only the barest of threads to tie it to the case. This is going to get worse, before it gets better.
Yep. That and his flippancy about it. Of course, it didn't hurt that a few months back he admitted to going to titty bars while calling all strippers drug addicts and whores. There's no reasoning with a guy like that on this subject.
Kobe said he was completely innocent from the onset. The prosecution has some evidence (Semen, hair, etc..). With Kobe saying he had no sexual relations with her, the D.A. decided to file charges based on his evidence of DNA. Kobe, after being charged, stated that he did have sex with her. The DNA that the prosecution has is now irrelevant to the case. Kobe's statement foils their gameplan.
I am quite confident that the DA has more evidence than a DNA sample. If DNA was ALL they had, they would not have filed charges. You neglected to answer this question: "In other words, had he not been charged, do you honestly think he would have attended a press conference to announce his infidelity? "
Of course not. A. It would save him face. B. Part of the reason he said it was because it will help his case.
The DA does have defense for this case. 1. He has the neighbors, co-workers, friends, and teachers who have all already vouched for her character. 2. He can impune Kobe's character. Why would you believe someone who cheats on his wife and family, and at first says that he shouldn't have to say anything. Then when the DNA evidence comes back the guy changes his tune, and does a tearful apology. I'm not saying Kobe is guilty, or that he is innocent, I don't know. But I do know that the DA has a defense for anything brought up in this article. What defense does Kobe have about him changing his tune?
So in other words, Kobe is a deceptive person who will lie (i.e. omit the truth) to save himself and his image? Seems to me the DA could use this against him: DA: So Mr. Bryant, why didn't you admit your infidelity prior to charges being filed: Bryant: I wanted to save face and help my case. DA: So you are willing to omit or bend the truth in order to protect your image: Bryant : Uh, that's not what I meant....
