• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TEXAS-NEWS DPS says body cam clears trooper of sexual assault; accuser’s attorney apologizes

Removable Mind said:
So are you going to the the arbitrator who decides on who is making false claims? Due process shouldn’t apply in such matters? If not you, who is going to be the chief lie detector in charge who will be given the power to sort out the guilty from the non-guilty?
Click to expand...

What? No I wont be, I'm not in law enforcement. Why would you pose these questions to me? Why is it you think being opposed to false allegations of rape requires all of that? Just what the hell is wrong with you?

I am the one one the side of due process, I'm not one who claims that alleged victims MUST always be believed.
 
Removable Mind said:
You think? You might send your reply to Spartacus FPV and possibly, Howard.

I believe that people who claim that there is an specified, or unquantified, number of false claims by women who are a part of a movement such as #metoo - at least offer some information about how they have concluded that there’s “too many false claims”.

So I’m not sure if I’m seeing “opinions” or some making unsubstantiated claims that “there are too many women” who are fundamentally lying about being sexually harassed or assaulted? All I wanted to know from “Howard” was, how many, or what percentage of these women “that he” believes are lying. And just as importantly, how he acquired the quantity or percentage that is the impetus for him believing that there are X number too many involved in making false claims.

Do you think that a condemnation of women, who are making such claims, is appropriate without having some specific knowledge about how many of those women merit being condemned as liars?

So, what’s your opinion about women making false claims? And if you too believe “too many claims are false, please include why you “are opining” that too many claims are false.

Thanks
Click to expand...

You answered your own question and validated my position in one swoop without realizing it.

You said "I'm not sure" and "Do you think"

We (most) live with both of those as part of our reasoning. You are demanding (now) a set-answer to satisfy your own opinion regarding claims/numbers & %. Other people have different opinions and if they are like me, I take it on a case by case basis.

Hang in there!
 
MrMike said:
You answered your own question and validated my position in one swoop without realizing it.

You said "I'm not sure" and "Do you think"

We (most) live with both of those as part of our reasoning. You are demanding (now) a set-answer to satisfy your own opinion regarding claims/numbers & %. Other people have different opinions and if they are like me, I take it on a case by case basis.

Hang in there!
Click to expand...


I hope that you’ve satisfied your opinion, as well.
 
Casper said:
Glad to see the truth come out. I would suggest we pass a law that if it can be proven that someone made a false accusation that person gets at least the minimum sentence the victim could have gotten.
Click to expand...
That presents a new danger. People can end up being falsely convicted of crimes just because they were unable to prove their accusation.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
That presents a new danger. People can end up being falsely convicted of crimes just because they were unable to prove their accusation.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think the two statements have a different meaning.
"I would suggest we pass a law that if it can be proven that someone made a false accusation"
is different than
"People can end up being falsely convicted of crimes just because they were unable to prove their accusation."
The first statement involves the state proving the supposed victim, made a false accusation.
The second revolves around an actual victim being unable to prove their accusation.
 
trouble13 said:
That presents a new danger. People can end up being falsely convicted of crimes just because they were unable to prove their accusation.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nope, not what i suggested, this only applies to those that knowingly make a false report and it is proven in a court of law.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
What? No I wont be, I'm not in law enforcement. Why would you pose these questions to me? Why is it you think being opposed to false allegations of rape requires all of that? Just what the hell is wrong with you?

I am the one one the side of due process, I'm not one who claims that alleged victims MUST always be believed.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear. I’m referring to women who have actually “claimed” or who have “alleged” to be victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault, who are active participants in movements like #MeToo, not women who are a supporter of such movements.

I think that pronouncing X number (any portion) of claims to be false, without having at least some knowledge about how many are false, tends to imply that there is an inordinate percentage of women who maliciously lie, or who lies in order to embellish the facts - is an unqualified opinion.

For example:

A lot of women don’t report rapes because many know their offenders and fear retribution or revenge. They’ll never get to engage in Due Process. But, as Virtual spectators (like ourselves) to the facts of any given reported events via print, television, radio, or the Internet - how is it even possible to make any condemnations of such movements when we (the public spectators) simply are lacking in posssessing critical information that would help us form any resemblance of a plausible opinion?
 
Casper said:
Nope, not what i suggested, this only applies to those that knowingly make a false report and it is proven in a court of law.
Click to expand...
That is a crime already but ty for clarifying

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Casper said:
Nope, not what i suggested, this only applies to those that knowingly make a false report and it is proven in a court of law.
Click to expand...

AKA “perjury” in a criminal case. Charging someone with perjury in a civil case, such as a wrong doing case, and seeking damages, isn’t so common. They usually get slapped with paying the other side’s attorney fees.
 
Removable Mind said:
AKA “perjury” in a criminal case. Charging someone with perjury in a civil case, such as a wrong doing case, and seeking damages, isn’t so common. They usually get slapped with paying the other side’s attorney fees.
Click to expand...

I know that but it is not enough, IMO.
 
AGENT J said:
BLMer's?

FYI, there are white cops that belong to BLM

retarded and stupid actions by individuals do not represent the whole anymore then anti-gun extremest represent the left and antigay bigots represent the right. Morons are simply individuals.
Click to expand...

A quibble.
Sometimes morons collect into groups and reinforce each other's...moron-ness.
 
The Mark said:
A quibble.
Sometimes morons collect into groups and reinforce each other's...moron-ness.
Click to expand...

This is true I agree that does happen but none the less the vast majority of time those are still individuals and not representative of an ACTUAL group . . . "MORON GROUPS" as you call them do exist though for sure. BLM isnt one of them any more than conservatives or liberals. Exceptions i guess would be nazis, white supremacists, the klan . . things of that nature.
 
TheGoverness said:
This is why all cop should have body cams. It protects them from people making BS accusations of misconduct against them.
Click to expand...

That or when it's the cops lying. It protects in both directions and definitely a useful tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom