I am not publishing comments which contain profanity, the real name of the NYE survivor, or rude/hateful language.
I welcome open discourse even with people with whom I disagree... but I always reserve the right to protect others or to limit this forum to polite conversation.
Thank you :)
6 comments:
What survivor? You mean victims of false accusations? You already published their names. Real rape victims can also be the men or women falsely accused and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and to be held in prison without bond only to be fully exonerated. Those are the real victims.
I'm a journalist, "Truth" so perhaps I can answer your question. Victims of sexual assault are usually not named in news stories or the like - unless they chose to be (think of Mike Tyson's accuser many years back; the press identified her by name only AFTER she came forward). The names of the accused are most always printed unless they are under the age of 16 - and when their names are printed, the words "accused" or "alleged" must follow. If they are acquitted, the phrase "who was acquitted of _____" follows their name(s). So for the sake of semantics, a rape victim is the person who was sexually assaulted, not the person(s) accused of doing the assaulting. It's done like that to preserve the "innocent until proven guilty" tennant and also to avoid libel suits from the accussed. But truth is the biggest defense against libel; nothing untruthful was printed here, I don't believe. There WAS a trial based on charges filed by a DA based on a video tape and victim testimony, am I right?
@the truth be told:
I agree that if someone completely fabricates a story to accuse another of rape, the accused is the victim.
However, based on the information made public, most people (including myself) believe that there were legitimate grounds to bring this case to trial. For example, there is no dispute that the two accused left a semi-conscious female lying half naked in a parking lot concrete floor after having sex with her.
You are entitled to your viewpoint that a rape was not comitted and can lean on the jury's verdict to justify that opinion, but I have yet to hear an unbiased & cogent argument that there was not enough evidence to bring this case to trial; therefore, labeling the female as the villain who leveled "false accusations" sounds ridiculous.
Furthermore, Lloyd Irvin himself wrote an open online letter the BJJ community in which he, in no uncertain terms, described the female as the victim.
@the truth be told:
I agree that if someone completely fabricates a story to accuse another of rape, the accused is the victim.
However, based on the information made public, most people (including myself) believe that there were legitimate grounds to bring this case to trial. For example, there is no dispute that the two accused left a semi-conscious female lying half naked on a parking lot concrete floor after having sex with her.
You are entitled to your viewpoint that a rape was not comitted and can lean on the jury's verdict to justify that opinion, but I have yet to hear an unbiased & cogent argument that there was not enough evidence to bring this case to trial; therefore, labeling the female as the villain who leveled "false accusations" sounds ridiculous.
Furthermore, Lloyd Irvin himself wrote an open online letter to the BJJ community in which he, in no uncertain terms, described the female as the victim.
thank you for sharing.
du hoc new zealand
publish my comments. the other posters want to be answered.
Post a Comment