IROC it, You say that Ive overlooked all the things that Kobe has done, but youve overlooked the fact that the girl is incredibly unstable and she went looking for him, not vice versa. Thats not to say that she deserves anything done to her in a negative fashion, but it does raise question marks from me. My opinion of her will not change until some true evidence comes up that shows for sure that she was raped. Otherwise, I stand by my initial opinions of her. In the same manner, I have lost respect for Kobe because he is guilty of adultery and on top of that, he has a baby girl. Thats just plain stupid of him to do that. But, Im not going to judge him as a rapist until it is proven that he was guilty of rape. Until then, I presume him as being innocent of the crime.
TaiMaiShu, very, very good points... good insight rezdawg, good points, you're entitled to your assessment... I applaude your resolve to stand by your views... we need more people like you but Kobe's the one charged... not the girl she'll not be on trial, he will she didn't cheat on a spouse, he did I hope he's innocent... most folks in CO. may not hope so with the benefit of the doubt considered, Kobe already had what was not his by his covenant to be faithful to what was his convicted of rape or not, he's already stated his own guilt in the initial act... it will be hard road from here to seperate consent from rape.... his definition vs. hers but hardest to live out over and over for his wife and family... not to mention the girl's it's all just so sad
rez: 1. the prosecutor has already said she had bruises in the vaginal area 2. where are you getting that she came looking for him? my understanding is he invited her up to his room...people can fool around without intercourse...happens all the time...if he forced intercourse, that's rape. 3. totally agreed that we have to wait until it plays out in court...but remember, just because he's not convicted doesn't mean he didn't do it. 4. her mental history is entirely irrelevant...my bet is it's excluded from the trial. i don't think it gets us any closer to whether or not she said no or not...and whether or not he went beyond consensual sexual activity.
I'm pretty sure this is not even a "maybe." Her history is insubmissable. It's called "The Rape Shield Law." They are not allowed to bring her character or even her sexual history into question.
This seems peculiar to me. There is a history of women's rights being unduly suppressed... but it seems as if the pendulum has swung too far in retaliation. This girl's rights, imo, shouldn't be protected at the defendant's expense. Anyone that isn't slightly taken aback by this girl's past... is not acknowledging the gravity of the situation.
Achebe, Yes, many people have said that the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. But you must remember the reason they started shielding the alledged rape victim: because the defense was asking questions about whether they go to singles bars, or how many guys they've screwed. If a women is truly raped, *NONE* of that matters, but the juries just couldn't resist punishing "immoral" victims as if they put themselves in the situation to become a victim, like that makes the rapist not guilty. That is the situation that brought on the Rape Shield Laws. btw: Marv Albert tried to get testimony of previous boyfriends of the victim stating that biting was part of the fun. But was denied. He then plead guilty of misdeamenor. <a href="http://reason.com/0202/co.cy.excluded.shtml">Read this</a> I seriously doubt Kobe's case will allow her history to be submitted, short of a history of wrongly accusing men.
As far as a woman initiating sexual contact with a man( oral, intercouse, or showering with one); if she says "no" at any point, morally a man should stop and if he continues on he is technically a rapist. He should however not be punished to the fullest extent of the law because the situation isn't fair. It is manipulative and even if the woman is just "confused" she put both herself and the guy in a bad place and he should not have to pay for a mistake that they both contributed to for the rest of his life. Usually the law caters to the woman and no I do not hate women but it is simply not fair that in a circumstance like I have stated above, a man can be convicted and the woman can go on with her life, learn from her mistakes, and not put herself in a position like that again and live a full life; while the man whose life is just as vauable is taken from his family and rots in jail all because she could not finish what she initiated. And as far as physical evidence usually during intercourse it is very easy for me to walk away with some scratches maybe some bruises and definitely the girl is bruised after we have sex and if she were simply to go to the precinct and claim rape I could be charged for a consensual act. A real woman doesn't act in that maner. Now as far as Kobe Bryant is concerned if he would have never cheated on his wife none of this would be debated, truth or untrue.
rezdawg, i guess you missed my challenge on page 6 of this thread (i was the first to accept your bet, btw). oh, and i guess you also missed the thread i started, as well. i'll try it again..... at the 25:1 odds you stated, i'll bet $10.00 that kobe will NOT be found "not guilty" of these charges. you still game or are you a coward?
Kobe's officially the defendant, but in reality, the woman and Sheriff Hoy will be on trial with him.
yes, they'll have burden of proof, but he's charged, not them... 101 6 7 , Amen brother (or sister, whichever be the case).
