• 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!

Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

Is the suggestion then that Mays best friend lied in his testimony at the preliminary hearing? That makes no sense.
I hesitate to contribute more to this thread considering I've been discussing the wrong case in several posts, but it could make sense if said testimony was offered as a way to get out of being indicted himself.
 
Well, after reading your "rest of the story," I'd be glad they did. However, if what you added in this thread were not the case, I would be furious. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't support jury nullification. I look at jury nullification as our last defense against bad law.

You have to presume that "the rest of the story" was not present since that would be a basis for reasonable doubt. The acquittal would not be based on reasonable doubt but, rather, sympathy for the boy. Why would it make you furious (or do you only support nullification when you agree with it ;))?

(BTW, you don't have to play along with this.)
 
You have to presume that "the rest of the story" was not present since that would be a basis for reasonable doubt. The acquittal would not be based on reasonable doubt but, rather, sympathy for the boy. Why would it make you furious (or do you only support nullification when you agree with it ;))?

(BTW, you don't have to play along with this.)

Oh, I like playing with you X-Factor! Yo-o!! X-Factorrrrr!! ;)

It would make me furious because, with the facts you're allowing me to use, they look guilty as sin. I wouldn't agree with jury nullification in that case. But that doesn't mean I don't support jury nullification on its face. It's the jury's right.
 
Oh, I like playing with you X-Factor! Yo-o!! X-Factorrrrr!! ;)

It would make me furious because, with the facts you're allowing me to use, they look guilty as sin. I wouldn't agree with jury nullification in that case. But that doesn't mean I don't support jury nullification on its face. It's the jury's right.

In all cases of jury nullification, the defendant has been proven guilty as sin but the jury decides, for whatever reason, to walk this particular guy. Heck, in this case, if the jurors acquitted based on the fact that he was a local football hero and their only hope for a state title, that is also nullification. To support nullification, you have to agree with acquitting people who have been actually proven guilty.

Thanks for playing along. I may disagree with your conclusion but I appreciate your direct answers.
 
You're being wildly emotional. I'm not "justifying" anything. I'm being rational. You're accusing a whole town of "doing nothing" when you don't have any evidence to back up that claim. It's an assumption of yours, nothing more.

If you can find things like "was not charged"; "declined to prosecute," etc., then you'd have something. But as far as I can tell, no such things are out there.

We know exactly what the town did: ran them out.
 
You mean like progressives blaming Bush after he is has been gone for 6 ****ing years?:lol:

And that has what, exactly, to do with my post?

All you've done is lower yourself to the same level. You can't even pretend to try to address this with some depth or honesty.
 
Actually as usual the answer should be in between. Allegations taken seriously yes, and no animosity should be shown to either party until after facts are known and best possible solution, all trials are complete.
Both of y'alls thoughts here seem to present situations where animosity prior to knowledge has been shown mostly because of the idea of jumping the gun. One shows where a community jumped too quickly to condemn the alleged rapists, and this OP shows where a community maybe jumping too soon to the opposite. So any presumption, imo, simple stokes the potential that someone may be falsely condemned, be it the alleged victim or the allege rapist.

I never argued for anything more than that.

All I'm condemning is the actual animosity of the townspeople who ran her and her family out because they don't want to disrupt the football season. I haven't even discussed the accused. I'm talking about the people who live in that town, and what happened to their basic sense of humanity.
 
It's also a social sickness where people are guilty until proven innocent. How many women lie about rape for pitty or to ruin a man's life that they want revenge against? Even if someone isn't convicted that slander sticks with them and many will just call them as guilty.

All rape allegations should be taken seriously, but they need to be kept at the level of allegation until the courts can rule on a verdict or if there is obviously clear evidence of the rape. This might not be just a case of flawed justice because the town wants to protect football guys.

How many lie? Hardly any.

Only 8% of rape cases are considered unverifiable. That includes not only false accusations, but also cases where there is simply no evidence (but they still may have happened).

This is another misogynistic trope, this idea that wicked-hearted women lie in droves about being raped.

But besides that, the post of mine you quoted has NOTHING to do with whether the accused actually raped her or not.

My post was about what the hell is wrong with the townspeople.
 
How many lie? Hardly any.

Only 8% of rape cases are considered unverifiable. That includes not only false accusations, but also cases where there is simply no evidence (but they still may have happened).

This is another misogynistic trope, this idea that wicked-hearted women lie in droves about being raped.

But besides that, the post of mine you quoted has NOTHING to do with whether the accused actually raped her or not.

My post was about what the hell is wrong with the townspeople.

So it makes no difference to you if the guy is guilty? Lol. Screw the guy even if he's innocent. I'm wondering why you (and the rest of your angst ridden buddies in this thread) are so ok with false allegations of rape. Actually, I'm really not wondering that. It is exactly consistent for you.
 
Last edited:
It's also a social sickness where people are guilty until proven innocent. How many women lie about rape for pitty or to ruin a man's life that they want revenge against? Even if someone isn't convicted that slander sticks with them and many will just call them as guilty.

All rape allegations should be taken seriously, but they need to be kept at the level of allegation until the courts can rule on a verdict or if there is obviously clear evidence of the rape. This might not be just a case of flawed justice because the town wants to protect football guys.

How dare you speak out against false allegations you misogynist bastard. Guilt/Innocence is completely irrelevant.
 
This might not be just a case of flawed justice because the town wants to protect football guys.

Might not be. But it might be.

A fair assessment of the situation, by people who are not politically/socially tied to the small town and the children in question, is all most of us are seeking.

Nobody is saying to castrate the boys without a trial.
 
Might not be. But it might be.

A fair assessment of the situation, by people who are not politically/socially tied to the small town and the children in question, is all most of us are seeking.

Nobody is saying to castrate the boys without a trial.

So have the trial first but it needs to result in castrating him. Ok. I ask you again what difference a trial would make to you? You've already convicted him, regardless of anything else that's come to light in this thread. Who cares if the allegation against the boy is false, right? Oh, and there's nothing unusual going on here despite the conspiracy you think you see. Prosecutor's offices make decisions like this every day all across the country. It's what they're there for. Maybe you should call them and tell them how you know more about this case than they do. I'm sure they'd appreciate the help.
 
Last edited:
Don't be a douche. Nobody is saying any such thing.

Oh that's right, to you he's guilty because the allegation was made. It's the actual evidence (or lack of it), that's irrelevant to you.
 
We know exactly what the town did: ran them out.

Never, ever, move to a small town that you weren't born into and had grown up in. Those quaint townsfolk can be absolute monsters once the bullying starts.
 
And that has what, exactly, to do with my post?

All you've done is lower yourself to the same level. You can't even pretend to try to address this with some depth or honesty.

Oh so there was no progressive rabid attacks on Bush when and after he was President? so who is being honest now?
 
Oh that's right, to you he's guilty because the allegation was made. It's the actual evidence (or lack of it), that's irrelevant to you.

Your ability to completely ignore what people post is astounding, and quite rude.
 
The good news is that the public outcry about this case is forcing Missouri to take another look at the whole situation.

Let a Grand Jury decide if there's "sufficient" evidence.
 
Actually no, her parents.

That's pretty damn stupid. #1) her father was killed in a car accident a few years ago. #2) Kids do things on their own. No parent has complete control over their children.

#3) Why aren't the boys parents included in your accusation?
 
Your ability to completely ignore what people post is astounding, and quite rude.

I'm not ignoring at all that you've presumed the kid guilty and feel you have a greater grasp of the case than anyone actually dealing with it and that false allegations is not something that concerns you.


The good news is that the public outcry about this case is forcing Missouri to take another look at the whole situation.

Let a Grand Jury decide if there's "sufficient" evidence.

Of course if they decide there isn't you'll say it's because they hate the girl and just want to let the football hero go. ;)
 
So it makes no difference to you if the guy is guilty? Lol. Screw the guy even if he's innocent. I'm wondering why you (and the rest of your angst ridden buddies in this thread) are so ok with false allegations of rape. Actually, I'm really not wondering that. It is exactly consistent for you.

Dude, read my post.

What I am taking issue with here is the fact that the townspeople don't even really care to find out if it happened. They have no sense of decency at all towards the girl.

It's not about assuming the guy is guilty, or treating him as if he is before that's known. It's about just being a decent person.

As to false allegations, I'm not ok with them. But someone asked how often they happened, and I answered: rarely.

Where have I said I'm "ok" with that? I am simply pointing out this baseless, oft-repeated meme about how women are so evil-willed and constantly accuse men of rape for no reason is just another attempt to devalue women when they do report.

We shouldn't assume anything when a woman reports. We should simply treat her respectfully and humanely, investigate the allegations respectfully and humanely, and make a real good-faith effort to find out.

If they are true, we should sentence appropriately and with the goal in mind of how to best protect society, not how to best stone the convicted. Keep in mind, I'm against the death penalty not just for all the practical reasons, but also because I don't think it becomes a developed nation to act like its criminals.
 
Dude, read my post.

What I am taking issue with here is the fact that the townspeople don't even really care to find out if it happened. They have no sense of decency at all towards the girl.

It's not about assuming the guy is guilty, or treating him as if he is before that's known. It's about just being a decent person.

As to false allegations, I'm not ok with them. But someone asked how often they happened, and I answered: rarely.

Where have I said I'm "ok" with that? I am simply pointing out this baseless, oft-repeated meme about how women are so evil-willed and constantly accuse men of rape for no reason is just another attempt to devalue women when they do report.

We shouldn't assume anything when a woman reports. We should simply treat her respectfully and humanely, investigate the allegations respectfully and humanely, and make a real good-faith effort to find out.

If they are true, we should sentence appropriately and with the goal in mind of how to best protect society, not how to best stone the convicted. Keep in mind, I'm against the death penalty not just for all the practical reasons, but also because I don't think it becomes a developed nation to act like its criminals.

And if it's determined that the allegations are false, there should be no consequences at all for the person who made them up. Ok. Who cares about the impact of a false allegation on the falsely accused.

It was investigated, you just think it wasn't because the kid isn't in prison right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom