Okay, now, where was I? Oh, yes. HillBoy: The criminal justice system is not about justice or fairness - it exists to convict and punish. In many cases, the actual guilt or innocence of the accused is inconsequential. No, I disagree here. I have served on juries, and two of those were agonizing to say the least (black defendant in one, Hispanic in the other and mixed juries for both). On both panels there was an element of "let's get it over with" at the start, but then a serious case of responsibility took root and everybody went over all the testimony and evidence with a fine tooth comb -- to the point of heated arguments by the most unlikely of panelists. I don't know if every jury panel is like the ones with which I was involved, but I surely hope so. Had you been there, you could never have reached such a conclusion as you posted. Unfortunately, many innocent people of all races, creeds and persuations have been sent to jail unjustly. However, again I argue that perceptions have changed in the general populace, although there are still a lot of lazy peace officers who assume the most likely answer is generally the right one. That is why I was perhaps a little uncivil recently when some poster came at me with his Occham's Razor drawn. Like Sean Connery said in "The Untouchables" -- "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight." Anyway, my plea is thus: "Have more faith in your fellow man." It's difficult at times, but overall it's a worthwhile pursuit. Now, one last point for the posters who show mock upset over the fact that Bryant's name was released. Bryant is a public figure. If he chose not to be, we wouldn't be discussing this. Fame, regardless of how acquired, makes you a public person. If his chief accuser chooses to write a book or do a movie or acquires a public reward for her 15 minutes of fame, then she too becomes a public figure -- but not until then. Bryant by his own choice has already crossed that threshhold. Goodness, he is a Faker afterall!
knowledge, yes evidence, no there was a widely circulated report several weeks ago that the DA acknowledged there was consensual sexual contact at the beginning. that would mean she engaged in some form of consensual sexual contact, making her a bad actor.
I have heard the same rumors, inuendos, and misinformation. Most of the stuff that was attributted to the sherriff or DA was debunked ages ago. The judge locked all the information up. Could you please point out your source concerning the DA's statement. I don't recall the statement you are talking about, but I would be happy to apologize if you can point me to it in an authoritative publication (not a bbs thread). ps. How do you get to be a senior member in a week ? If you change monikers do you maintain seniority ?
Thumbs, I really respect your opinions and position. One can see that they are heart-felt and well thought out. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the criminal justice system. If you can, check out Michael Moore's excellent documentary "Bowling For Columbine". While parts of it may be a little heavy handed, he is mostly dead on especially when he addresses the climate of fear that exists in this country and how the negative images of the black male have been used to fuel that fear in white America. Then maybe you will come to understand some of the root causes of my cynacism.
no, but I'll invite you to use the same search methods available to me and I don't recall saying the DA said it, I said that there was a report that he acknowledged. I recall that a source close to the prosecution was identified as the person who reported some consensual contact by her. it remains to be seen if it's true. I believe it. you needn't.
I will -- despite my exceptionally low opinion of the man, his opinions and his methods -- if you will read, "The Price of Union" by Herbert Agar, a Nobel Prize winner for his study of the American system, how it developed and why.
Yeah, I can see your point about Moore. While some of his observations can be brilliant, his dependence on "ambush" journalism often obscures his true message.
True but in todays PR laden damage contol mediated (Hello Team Kobe) national media, it's pretty hard to get an uncoached interview by any other means.
This is the kind of post that got me kicked out of the Laker Board -- they too don't like having holes poked in their fantasies with logic or truth. Look at what you have said: knowledge, yes / evidence, no This isn't even a leap of logic -- it's a leap of Laker faith. I guarantee that if you had knowledge you would be under subpoena. Oh, before my tirade gets heated, she would be a bad actress unless Kobe Bryant wants to admit to foppery as well. Get your genders straight. Now let's look at that "widely circulated report." First, it was a RUMOR that may or may not be fact. We have to wait to see. However, for purposes of argument, let's assume it's true. Let's suppose you and your girlfriend have just finished a date, and she asks you inside because it's cold outside. You and she kiss. Ahhh. That's nice. She shows in her eyes that she likes you. Does that mean you can now throw her down on the floor, rip her clothes off amid her protests and bang away until the fire from your wick goes out? Under your argument, this would not be rape because there was some consensual sex. Right? Now go to a woman's shelter and explain that to the battered, raped women who go there nightly. I cannot believe the lengths that Laker idiots go to just because a guy can dunk a basketball for their team. Under your blind eye Bryant could have raped his grandmother on the county courthouse steps at noon, and you would have pointed out that she hugged him as a child so the sex was consensual. At least argue the rationale for injustice or the underlying forces at work against Bryant, as Hilllboy does. But, for Heaven's sake, use some thought before you post. Then again, if you did, you might not be a senior member in less than a month.
you are misinformed about matters of law. 1. the term is bad actor, not bad actress. Make that kind of mistake in court, and everyone in the room would laugh you out. "Bad actor" is a legal term, and it's appropriate to describe her. 2. there's knowledge and there's personal knowledge. Personal knowledge is the one that gets you subpoenaed, not merely knowledge. 3. I'm a Rockets fan who doesn't like Kobe or the Lakers. Your attempt to so imply merely underscores the general weakness which permeates your entire post.
First, "bad actor" is NOT a "legal" term. I covered police for a long time and it is a term used by police officers in their reports. You'd be laughed out of court if you used the term "bad actor" unless you were referring to a male film personality. 2. there's knowledge and there's personal knowledge. Personal knowledge is the one that gets you subpoenaed, not merely knowledge. [/QUOTE] If you had any knowledge, you would not make this kind of assertion. At this juncture, it is pure conjecture. Wishing for something doesn't necessarily make it so. KRocket tried to get you to offer any "proof" or "reference materials" and you refused. 3. I'm a Rockets fan who doesn't like Kobe or the Lakers. Your attempt to so imply merely underscores the general weakness which permeates your entire post. [/QUOTE] All evidence to the contrary....but, show me the weakness. Prove your point. Don't just shake your fist with one hand and hold up your underwear with the other like some snot-nosed child. I've taken your assertion to the absurd to show you how illogical your position is -- now prove me wrong.
you know nothing of the law, and it's obvious from your posts. your efforts to sound erudite are laughable I'll stick with my own knowledge, but thanks for playing. And if I wanted to argue with someone, I wouldn't do it with such a baby. You are downright silly in your approach to discussion. I know you must think your skills amazing, but you are a weak, weak debater. Juvenile.
Now, is that being a Friendly Fan? Seriously, prove your point. I wish to be dazzled and shown the error of my views -- but with logic and facts, not this display of "you're just a big meanie." If you wish to take a position, defend it. This should be easy considering I am a "weak, weak debater." And quit pouting when someone starts sawing off the thin little branch you have crawled out on.
As I suspected, you can't prove your point and you know it. I'm "downright silly in (my) approach to discussion" just because I want you to support your views with facts, logic, analogy, printed news stories or anything concrete. Please put me on your "Ignore List." You've got nothing to offer me nor I for you. Friendly Fan, you DO blow hot air.
The beauty of this board is that disparate opinions can flourish. Indeed, they help board members become more enlightened with shared viewpoints in the search for truth. Not one person has all the truth. However, when each of us puts our little pieces of truth on the table, suddenly we get the whole truth. That is what our system is about. But when someone just makes a statement without reason, fact, logic, compassion, etc., then that person corrupts the whole truth, and, I'm sorry, but that is anathema to me. As an example, HillBoy and I will disagree on many points -- from the shoes we wear and right on up. But I respect his viewpoints because he provides historical framework and his personal rationale for them. I can learn his truth, and hopefully I can share my meager supply. Neither of us have to accept the other's views, but the sharing is vital.
the beauty of this board is I don't have to argue with you just because you think I need to justify my position to you. why don't you just accept that other people can have opinions that are different from yours?
FF is right...bad actor is absolutely a term used in court and in the law in general. it does not change with the gender of the person...honestly, i laughed out loud when i read that! having said that...i'm not sure how that exonerates Kobe in any way in this case. so they had foreplay...they messed around...and then he wanted penetration...and she said no...but he did it anyway. that's the very essence of rape. thumbs - FF is a lawyer.
This tempest in a teapot about what we can or cannot prove is misplaced. The only thing that matters is WHAT COMES INTO EVIDENCE. Professor Graglia of UT Law used to say "It doesn't matter what happened. It's what the admissible evidence says happened." We don't know what will come into evidence and what won't. You can plan all day long not to allow something into evidence, but if a witness slips and opens the door, there goes your game plan. Trials are performance art, with each side a street director, urging his witnesses to perform properly for the street audience, in this case a jury. It's got an element of improvisation to it. Especially when you ask your own damn witness the same question you asked them in practice, but they don't give you the answer they were supposed to. Anyway, at this point, it's just folks giving their opinions, everybody has one. To suggest that one can argue what is known or not known, what is compelling evidence or not - makes no sense. Cases that look great on paper fall apart when the key witnesses come off poorly. Judges do or do not let a line of questioning in. These are things you often don't know until midstream. Every lawyer has his game plan for trial, and it's a miracle if you don't have to fix some gaping hole before it is over. A trial lawyer sees the case much differently than observers, particularly the press, who are notoriously simple when reporting trials. For example, journalist always say "the jury awarded $10 million to the plaintiff ...." Wrong. The jury doesn't award anything. The jury answered a question. The judge may or may not enter a judgment on that verdict, or he may remit $9 million and make it one million. Point is juries don't award anything, they answer questions. All a discussion about Kobe can possibly prove is how Thumbs, or me, or anyone else feels about the case. It's personal opinion.
