333,642 posts

Feel good story - Jury awards man $8.4 million for false rape accusation

by on /r/TheRedPill
21 February 2018 07:30 AM UTC

Reddit View - Download PDF - Download TXT

This story is a couple months old, but I just saw it. An army colonel was about to be promoted to general when some random blogger accused him of raping her like 30 fucking years ago. The army yanked his promotion and started an investigated that found no proof, but his career was over. Can you imagine that shit?

He sued her for defamation and was awarded $3.4 million for lost wages and reputation damage and $5 million (!!!!) for punitive damages. Apparently the punitive damages in this state are limited to $350K and the overall damages will probably be reduced to around $2 million, but wow this is still a huge win.

He proved that every part of her story literally could not have happened. The jury was composed of three men and four women. They deliberated for 2.5 hours, but the entire deliberation was over the amount of the damages. They all unanimously agreed after their initial poll that she was liable. One juror said that they awarded the punitive damages "to make sure that something like this could never happen again."


Edit: Oh and after the army's investigation found no evidence against him, his name was put forward again for promotion but Obama's scumbag Army Secretary still denied it. Unreal what that man did to the country.

Edit 2: Been getting some flak for my first edit because I said that Obama's Army Secretary denied the promotion and it is against sub rules to discuss politics. Sorry.... I guess? I didn't attack liberal tax policy or foreign policy. I attacked their sexual assault policy.

I'm not sure how the politics can really be disentangled from this case. One party has been driving this almost exclusively, and one party decided to create a situation in academia and in the military where one unfounded accusation on someone's blog ends your career/education in order to win more votes from women. That's the reality. If reality makes you uncomfortable, there are a few other subs I can recommend for you to check out such as Two X Chromosomes or The Blue Pill.

If any of the mods think this breaks the rules I will remove the offending paragraph.

Edit 3: There's a bit of confusion in the comments that people are saying "glad he was acquitted," or "why wasn't she jailed for lying," etc. I'd like to give a 10 cent civics lesson for those who maybe aren't from the US or don't fully understand the legal system. I'm not a lawyer. Please feel free to correct me if you are and I've made a mistake.

In the US and other countries that get their legal traditions from the English, there are two types of trials, criminal and civil. In a criminal trial, the people through their government bring charges against a person for breaking a law. At the trial the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime to the jury. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, then you are punished by the state with fines, community service, probation, prison, or even death.

In a civil trial, one private citizen or corporation sues another private citizen or corporation (government can sometimes be sued but not always) for committing a tort against them. They seek to recover monetary damages for being wronged. These torts could be anything from libel/slander like in this case, to medical malpractice, to suing a dog owner if his animal bit you. In a civil trial, the person bringing the suit must show that there is a greater than 50% chance that they are correct (different standard than criminal trial) and also show how they were damaged by the wrongdoing.

If the jury decides in their favor they can then decide how much the damages should be. There are different types of damages that can be awarded. For example in this case the jury awarded him $3.4 million for lost wages and for damage to his reputation. This means that the jury believed that the wages he should have made as a general plus the damage to his future earning potential and the personal suffering he endured because of his damaged reputation was worth $3.4 million. They also awarded punitive damages of $5 million. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant and deter future behavior like this. Again note that the actual judgement was almost certainly reduced by the judge to around $2 million. This seems to be a pretty common theme in civil trials.

Some are asking why she is not in prison for making a false charge. She never made any official charge against him. She just put some words on her blog. Some are also asking why she isn't in jail for perjury (lying under oath), since she lost her case. Understand that just because she lost this case, she is not guilty of perjury. The government would have to bring charges against her and conduct a whole new criminal trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied in her testimony. Simply losing a court case in which you testified is not enough to convict you of perjury, otherwise the loser would be getting hit with a perjury charge after after case.

Post Information
Title Feel good story - Jury awards man $8.4 million for false rape accusation
Upvotes 1776
Comments 146
Date 21 February 2018 07:30 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/48874
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7z3u1z/feel_good_story_jury_awards_man_84_million_for/
Similar Posts


0 upvotesTheRedPike2 years ago

Enough dick-sizing over politics. Knock it off.

413 upvotesLavlamp2 years ago

Really wish criminal charges resulting in jail time were part of the outcome.

87 upvotesmarlan_2 years ago

I know nothing of the law, but wouldn't false rape claims be lying, and thus purgery in court, which has minimum jail sentences?

84 upvotesMetalageddon2 years ago

Lying under oath, so yeah, You could really throw the book at her if you wanted. Wasting law enforcement time, maybe conspiracy, etc.

17 upvotesjustcallmetarzan2 years ago

Jesus the answers here are bad. Its likely not perjury unless she maintained the lie in court. Lying to the police is not perjury, its making a false statement to a law enforcement offficee or obstruction or false reporting, all three of which are crimes.

I have had DPAs tell me they refuse to file false reporting charges on rape "victims" after we get their claims dismissed. Because of the "chilling effect" they say...

43 upvotesNeed_vagina_pix_nao2 years ago

Because of the "chilling effect" they say....

This is bullshit. Men have their lives ruined all of the time because of false allegations. Next day regret or 30 years down the road regret is not a viable excuse to holler rape. I'm all for punishing rapists, but damn if the women filling false charges shouldn't pay just as heavy of a price for their false accusations.

2 upvoteszyqkvx2 years ago

Not as chilling as being one of the many men falsely accused of rape.

0 upvotesfromthecrypt82 years ago

What do they mean by chilling effect? Because it will deter real rape victims from coming forward?

1 upvotesjustcallmetarzan2 years ago

This is their theory, yes. Prosecutors apply this theory equally to false domestic violence reporting. Curious that it's a crime (at least in some jurisdictions) to interfere with domestic violence reporting, but apparently de facto not a crime to falsely report it.

22 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

I'm fairly certain she never filed a police report. All of her accusations were made on her blog site.

9 upvotesHamster_S_Thompson2 years ago

Blogposts - Where the due process happens.

11 upvotescuggwy2 years ago

Yes but she never claimed in court just a blog

22 upvotesKnowBrainer2 years ago

When did our country start operating under Court of Blog ?

27 upvotesjoedevice2 years ago

Has your head been buried under a rock or do you just not read the news?

Trial by Media is all the rage nowadays.

1 upvotesKnowBrainer2 years ago

I was just hoping it was a dream. It makes so little sense for people to go through the same school as me but come out so much dumber.

6 upvotesomnicidial2 years ago

Which technically makes it libel.

Written words intended to harm where she knew the words were not true but still did it in order to inflict harm.

Libel and slander fall into that category.

0 upvotescuggwy2 years ago

That's not a criminal charge is it though?

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

She lied on a blog post. That is not perjury. If you intentionally lie with the purpose of harming someone, then you have committed a civil tort called slander or libel.

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

slander, if spoken, libel, if written and false. and filing a false report, is another charge. possibly conspiracy, if she provably had to mentally construct, premeditated lying to law enforcement and court officials, and defamation of character. IANAL , but that's what I could think, off the cuff

1 upvotestechiejames2 years ago

But it wasn't reported to police, nor was he ever charged. It went from an accusation on her blog, to him suing her for libel.

10 upvotesHerdsengineers2 years ago

The problem (in the eyes of the court) is that real victims could end up in jail if their attacker were found not guilty, and then charges were pressed back against the victim. Personally, I think false accusers should be tried, convicted, fined, and incarcerated. Concerns about the system not working for real victims is just semantics and hamstering reasons why to keep giving those poor women pussy passes for their wrong doing.

5 upvoteslessyes2 years ago

It would be nice if an accuser of rape, if found to be false, would get the sentence that would have been for the accused

3 upvotesDmva1002 years ago

If a chick is going to proceed with rape charges that are false, it is more beneficial to kill her. Murder 2 (if lawyer can spin it) with no criminal record is 10 Years. You be out in 6 on good behavior and are feared in prison for your crime since you are branded a killer.

Rape carries an average of 9 years, with sex offender registry, and you will be targeted ruthlessly while serving your time. Add time if the judge is a BP or a feminist.

Take option 1

1 upvotesdr_warlock2 years ago

16 years in prison no parole + sex offender registry.

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Prisons are all ready overflowing with violent psychopaths who are literally incapable of existing in the world without being violent and causing crime. This lady's a cunt but keeping her behind bars really just seems like a waste of tax money.

Just punish her with a ridiculous probationary condition like they do with drunk drivers and repeat petty crime offenders so it's like she exists behind bars, but in the real world and taxes don't have to pay for it. She's probably civil enough where she'll obey it out of fear of getting locked up.

1 upvotesLavlamp2 years ago

Good points. There are also things worse than prison sometimes too.

2 upvotesDarukoaus2 years ago

Women's jail - you mean the country clubs they get sent to for a few months, where the biggest thing they have to fear is being separated from their smart phones for lengthy periods of time?

1 upvotesDmva1002 years ago

The punishment for lying about rape should be allowing the male to legally rape the woman in a private room within the courthouse for security reasons and then walk free.

1 upvotesKnocksEmUp2 years ago

Inserting your dick in a vagina is NOT ALWAYS desirable! Depends on your tastes and her attractiveness, so this suggestion looks a little strange to those of us who would not fuck anything. Much better, as others have been suggesting, to find a way to make her pay commensurate with the damage she caused.

65 upvotesStrigon2 years ago

Where is the due process for false rape accusations? I just had a friend kicked out of school because the school found him guilty even though the local police cleared him because there was no evidence.

29 upvotesjuliusstreicher2 years ago

It's called a 'lawsuit'. Apparently, the tide is turning and juries are awarding good judgments against oppressive universities for their high handedness. Search the sub for examples.

15 upvotestechiejames2 years ago

Tell him to find a Title IV lawyer, and sue.

11 upvotescreekcanary2 years ago

I would concur with others about the lawyer, as well as share a personal story that should encourage you.

I have a friend who is a Ivy League educated lawyer. I won’t say the school for privacy, but it’s a very very prestigious school. He’s spent years working as a defense litigator for Corporate America. I just saw him recently and he said “oh yeah I have a new job — I’m working on defending young men who get caught up in all the college sexual assault craziness”.

Trust me, if this guy is working on this issue, it means there is an assload of money to be made as an attorney. He isn’t some loser working to protect a tree from getting chopped down. This guy is a winner. The tide is turning.

9 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Yea colleges are sitting on a metric fuck ton of cash, and if lawyers know one thing, it's who has a metric fuck ton of cash that they can sue.

9 upvotescreekcanary2 years ago

AND how liable they are, and how likely they are to lose a lawsuit in an impartial courtroom. This to me is basically proof that this kangaroo court bullshit is not here to stay.

8 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Hit em where it hurts. If we're really lucky maybe some colleges will have to lay off their diversity deans to pay judgments.

8 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

He should definitely speak to a lawyer. The lawyer can help him decide if he has a case that is worth pursuing. Lawyers may be more willing to take these cases on now because it has been shown that they can win.

109 upvotesvictor_knight2 years ago

What if the "random blogger" can't afford to pay the $2 million?

133 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

She almost certainly can't. He will probably see a tiny fraction of the total. The system is so fucked up. He will have to pursue more legal action to get paid. She'll have to go to court and disclose all of her assets to a judge and the judge will decide based on the law in that state what can be seized. I don't know what assets can be taken and what can't as I'm not a lawyer.

At the end of it she will go into bankruptcy. Again I don't know if that would wipe out any remaining debts or if he can place liens on her future income.

109 upvotesvictor_knight2 years ago

So he may very well end up having spent more time and money on legal fees than he ever gets from her. Got it.

135 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Very possible. I'm sure he still considered it worth it to clear his reputation. Now if you google him this article comes up, instead of what she wrote.

Still, it makes your blood boil how fucked up shit is. She should be sold into slavery.

67 upvotesBurnoutRS2 years ago

That almost seems like a reasonable punishment. I only say "almost" because I dont really support slavery, but like, if you're willing to utterly destroy another persons life for financial gain, put them at the mercy of the legal system and the court of public appeal, maybe you deserve it.

How different is slavery really from living under a rape allegation/conviction? No matter what you do you're not really a person anymore. In either case you no longer have direct control over your life. Eye for an eye type shit.

20 upvotesHerdsengineers2 years ago

Seize her home, car, other assets, sell at auction, give proceeds to the Colonel. Then impose a garnishment that diverts a portion of her income to him until the debt is paid. If she goes unemployed, put her in public housing and put her to work digging ditches, continue the garnishment until the debt is paid.

31 upvotesFrenetic_Zetetic2 years ago

They should garnish her wages for life after bullshit like this.

24 upvotes921ninja2 years ago

Often when that happens the garnished party will just stop working out of spite and go unpunished.

5 upvotesGinoMan24402 years ago

Well, we have slavery in prisons, personally, I think slavery might be a good punishment for her. It's not like she was kidnapped or being punished for having an unpopular view; she committed a crime by falsely accusing him (crime in the absolute sense, not the legal sense) and the punishment for that should be slavery to pay back the award of the court. She shouldn't be able to get out of it by not working, sucking on the government teat, and filing for bankruptcy. She should have to work for him until she pays every last red cent.

Or more justly, since she made a false accusation of a crime, she should have to go to jail for the maximum he would have if she had made the accusation when it was fresh and he'd been convicted and be put on the sex offender registry. She abused him sexually by having fully consentual sex with him and then accusing him of rape.

-1 upvotestechiejames2 years ago

More indentured servitude than slavery. That is a lot of minimum wage work. If you take half of her 40 hour week to give to him, it will take about 5 years for her to pay this up.

5 upvotesRelativePlan2 years ago

Five years to pay off $8.4 million from half of a minimum wage job. You seem to think minimum wage pays around about $64k a week.

12 upvotesMetalageddon2 years ago

In America it won't wipe your debt necessarily. Bankruptcy is an entire set of federal chapters, from liquidation to municipal rearrangement. Besides, the ruling is going to be reduced to 2mill payout. The rest is trying to drive the point home.

Regardless, she's fucked. At the best, most of her worth will be seized.

I'm not a lawyer, you may want to ask one for more details.

I would've been happier if she owed him plus jail time, but this is good enough.

2 upvoteszyqkvx2 years ago

I doubt he's concerned about the money and knows he's not going to get it. I think he did this 0% for the money and 100% to clear up his rep.

7 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

He fucked her over worse than if she had simply slept with him and didn'y say anything. Good to see legal system do something right for once.

7 upvotes88Will882 years ago

Then this judgment can be used to piggy back a law suit against the army. First thing we learn as lawyers - always sue the deeper pocket, I hope his legal team were simply getting this judgment to assist their real suit against the army.

9 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Isn't the government usually immune from these sorts of suits?

9 upvotesequilibrant2 years ago

She can't, check out her GoFundMe.

6 upvotesGroundhogLiberator2 years ago

Can you link that? I gotta see this shit.

Help, I accused a guy of rape and ruined his life, now I need money after it was proven I was full of shit.

7 upvotesequilibrant2 years ago

Just Google her name. The GoFundMe was for the lawsuit and legal fees. Those who donated in good faith must be disappointed. The story on the page is quite hilarious though.

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Yea she has like $10k in a GoFundMe for defense. I don't think she has any money.

19 upvotesshaggyctes882 years ago

Women 101: why use my own money to pay a lawyer if the beta cucks who trust in my story are more than willing to pay for me?

2 upvoteszyqkvx2 years ago

I'd like to know what % of men vs women donated to that fundme. At the moment Im thinking it was mostly male. Not sure.

2 upvoteslong-lostfriend2 years ago

Fun fact: during a custody dispute, I found a GoFundMe started by my ex-wife that falsely painted me as a sexual predator and even included pictures of my own children. My lawyer and I held on to that little piece of information and sprung it on her (and the judge) at the hearing. Didn't get the end result I wanted, but the judge was so pissed about it that she (yes, she) suspended my child support payments for three months to send her a message to knock it the fuck off.

64 upvotesSoulRebel992 years ago

Its time we held women legally accountable for their wrongs. At least its treating them fairly.

57 upvotesMattyAnon2 years ago

He should be able to sue the army too - they were the ones that punished him for a baseless accusation.

22 upvotesTryhardPantiesON2 years ago

Agree with you. But that's a more difficult fight to win, probably not worth the hassle.

10 upvotesjuliusstreicher2 years ago

Au contraire, mon ami. It looks like a few mil, which is, indeed, worth the hassle.

5 upvotesMetalageddon2 years ago

Good luck with that. "I agree with you fully, but it just won't happen :("

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

It's not possible to sue the federal government as a military personnel, the feres doctrine took care of that after ww2

-1 upvotesi_forget_my_userids2 years ago

They did an investigation and passed on him. That's not actionable.

4 upvotestechiejames2 years ago

If, and this is a big if, it is provable that his second application was denied because of the accusation, despite finding the accusation was false, would be actionable.

1 upvotesapplythrottle2 years ago

Hopefully he got his commission back and was reinstated but I’m going to guess he didn’t. Probably got a BCD and will lose his pension as well.

58 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Nope. He tried after the army investigation cleared him but before the trial, but Obama's Army Secretary still wouldn't reinstate him.

He did not get any sort of bad discharge because he was never convicted or even charged with anything. He's collecting his full colonel pension, and the damages are meant to cover what he should be making as a general.

28 upvotesPicklesOReilly2 years ago

but Obama's Army Secretary

You keep harping on this but McHugh is a republican. Obama nominated him as the liason with the army because he had a lot of experience on military subcommittees, and that nomination was confirmed by the senate with seemingly few or no objections.

So, it's not like he was some SJW Obama unilaterally stuck the army with or something.

0 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Well I don't know what to say about that. Secretary of the Army is a political appointee, not just part of the civil service. If you are a political appointee, that makes you part of the administration. If he had a problem with the policies of the admin he was serving in he could have resigned. Staying in and helping to carry them out implies that you support them.

He is also the actual person who pulled the promotion even after the army's investigation revealed no evidence.

0 upvotesHerdsengineers2 years ago

He did what his boss told him, regardless of his party affiliation. Not much difference between a lot of Republicans and Democrats these days anyway.

10 upvotesRaej2 years ago

Are you even sure it was "what his boss told him" and not just his own decision? I don't see why this (frankly relatively minor in the administrations eyes) decision would even come from 'pon high.

0 upvotesHerdsengineers2 years ago

Trying to not get into supporting one side or other a political case, but it was pretty obvious the former administration was on a well coordinated agenda. Everyone in the Executive Branch (IRS, State Dept, FBI, NSA, DoD, etc.) followed a very consistent agenda and ideology. That doesn't happen without leadership and communication of some manner.

This post is not intended to convey support for or be against the former Administration's agenda. It's strictly an observation and doesn't offer judgement good or bad. Honestly, I wish the current administration could get that well run from a "everyone on the same page" stand point as well.

6 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Haha just following orders... He isn't some helpless civil servant. He is a former Congressman. He was the Secretary of the Army, appointed personally by the President and confirmed by the Senate. He had one layer of bureaucracy between him and the President, his boss the Secretary of Defense. He was a very powerful man.

He is either part of the problem or a complete moral coward.

1 upvotesHerdsengineers2 years ago

I definitely agree wholely with your last sentence. These days though, the only way you get appointed to a position like that is if you are willing to be a lackey or crony for the one above you, and his deep state political masters (or put another way, the people that hold the $$ strings for campaign and other political donations). In the end, all our "leaders" are bought and paid for by someone else. Except Trump. He's at least truly independent of the rest of $$ changing hands. Now if he'd just put down the Twitter account and learn to be more composed and stoic.

1 upvotesPicklesOReilly2 years ago

That's a rather simplistic and naive understanding of how government actually works. It's not as much a football game as people on the ground imagine it...with two "teams" that never mix.

It's a fact that over history many people have served in many administrations they didn't agree with...they often just feel it's more important to focus on their job.

It's fine if you take issues with his decisions over his career, that makes sense...but harping on the "obama" part just makes you seem irrational and partisan.

0 upvotessssimasnek2 years ago

Lol why do you make this about Obama

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Well, I'd have to say because he is completely responsible. Any other fucking stupid questions?

8 upvotesacekilo2 years ago

We need to start counter suing their asses man!!!! Fuck these lying seeking attention ass hoes with daddy issues man. Since their not counting the false charges into their percentages, we need to start a suing them for their bullshit!!!

24 upvotesZidaneLoire2 years ago

In her blog:

"He actually had the burden of proof to show that the rape NEVER HAPPENED.  That is how you prove defamation.    I wrote that he raped me.  He sued me for that statement.  He had to prove THAT HE DIDN’T RAPE ME and never did.  Yet the jury decided for him anyway."

He has to prove he didn't rape her. That's how it works now.

Edit: ok I just found out in the U.S. the burden of proof in libel is with the prosecution. Where I come from they're with the with the defense. Whoever writes any factual information must have evidence to back it up. I wrote this down below but I kept getting replies so that's why it's confusing to me.

13 upvotesjoedevice2 years ago

That's always how it works. This is a libel case. You always have to prove falseness to win in libel.

If she had gone to criminal court to press charges then in that case then they would have had to prove that he did rape her.

5 upvotesNYCSPARKLE2 years ago

If she had gone to criminal court to press charges then in that case then they would have had to prove that he did rape her. convince a jury that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

7 upvotesZidaneLoire2 years ago

Really, that's how it works in the US? That sounds dumb. So I can write whatever I feel like writing about you and if you can't prove that's false, then fuck you ?

In my country you need to have evidence of what you write. Or something that reasonably led you to believe that what you wrote is right, like a statement or something written, even if it turns out it wasn't.

11 upvotesNYCSPARKLE2 years ago

No, that's how it works everywhere, and it's more complicated than how you're describing it.

For example, statements of pure opinion aren't libel. If I wrote an Op-Ed on the front page of the New York Times that says "I think ZidaneLoire is a silly cunt nugget," you can't sue me for libel.

The actual legal test is: 1) is the statement false and made without adequate research into the actual truth of the statement, and 2) did it cause harm.

5 upvotesZidaneLoire2 years ago

Lol I know how libel works. Statements in context of comedy are also exempt of libel. But this wasn't opinion or comedy.

That still doesn't apply to where the burden of proof lies, which was what was actually being discussed.

Edit: oh I get what you were talking about. The I can write whatever I want about you. Right. I meant I can write whatever non opinion and non comedy accusation about you and if you can't prove it wrong, then it's cool.

Like if I write an article about how you are a whore because you sell your ass for cash and you sue me, according to US law you need to prove you have never ever sold your ass for cash. That it ?

Where I live I'd have to prove I had a legitimate reason to accuse you of selling your ass for cash.

2 upvotesNYCSPARKLE2 years ago

Right. I meant I can write whatever non opinion and non comedy accusation about you and if you can't prove it wrong, then it's cool.

Correct, if I decide to sue you for libel, that is the burden of proof that I have.

So for someone to sue someone else for defamation (in this case, the guy vs. the girl), he has to prove it's false and caused harm.

This is different than if she filed charges for rape, and the state / govt prosecuted him. In this case, he just has to convince a jury that there is reasonable doubt that he committed the crime - i.e. still due process.

People are mixing up who sued whom here. It's not a violation of his rights to have to prove her statement false to win his case. He is suing her. Not the other way around.

2 upvotesZidaneLoire2 years ago

Yeah it's what I was trying to say, in my country the libel defendant has to prove why he or she wrote it. Not the other way around.

It makes no sense to me that the person who has a derogatory article written about him or herself is the one who has to prove the article is false.

3 upvotesjoedevice2 years ago

In the US at least. Here in the UK the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that it's true.

0 upvotesNYCSPARKLE2 years ago

It's not the burden of proof, it's just the best way for someone accused of libel to mount the best defense.

Subtle difference, but there is a difference.

Also, the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff, not the Defendant.

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

He has to show that there is a greater than 50% chance that she is lying, that the lie was deliberate and intended to harm him, and that he was damaged by the lie. There is a very high standard to win these cases.

2 upvotesNYCSPARKLE2 years ago

He has to prove he didn't rape her.

Correct, in order for him to sue her for defamation, yes he does.

This isn't a criminal rape case, it's a civil libel case (i.e. he is the Plaintiff, not the Defendant).

I get the point you're trying to make and agree, but this legal technicality still applies.

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Where I come from they're with the with the defense.

I admit I'm not familiar with every legal system in the world, but this makes no sense. You are saying that if someone sues you in your country for libel, you have to prove that you didn't libel them? The person who is doing the accusing can just sit back and defend? The implications for that are ridiculous and I have a hard time believing that such a system could exist anywhere.

-1 upvotesZidaneLoire2 years ago

Pretty much. You need to prove that the claims impact your life and were said in a factual sense, I.e. not in comedy or as an opinion. After that is settled the defendant must then prove that they have a reasonable enough motive to claim that, even if it's not true. Say a girl says she's raped. I write that someone is a rapist because she said she was raped by said person. If she then comes clean and says she wasn't raped, I cannot be hold liable if I had false information at the time of writing. So basically you just have to prove you didn't pull it out of your ass in a reasonable way.

Makes perfect sense to me. The other way around confuses me. Why would you have to prove what someone else wrote is false ?

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

I read the wikipedia page you posted below and it seems this was changed in 2013. I'll give you some credit because I thought you were completely full of shit, but this is pretty insane and I guess that's why they changed it. The plaintiff should always have the burden of proof. It's just common sense.

0 upvotesZidaneLoire2 years ago

I'm pretty much done with this post, if anyone else has doubts just google legal systems around the world. I'm not in the uk anyway.

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Dude you posted a link below about English defamation law to show that you were right. If you aren't in England why would you post that?

-1 upvotesZidaneLoire2 years ago

Because england had it similar up to 2013 and my online identity is anonymous. At least you have one place in the world with a wikipedia article to show you it was actually so.

7 upvotesAllahHatesFags2 years ago

But we need to "listen and believe" women! /s

Seeing stories like this always makes my day.

4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Random blogger makes a random accusation

High ranking US military officer's career ruined instantly...

I know there was justice, but this is the world we live in.

5 upvotesVickVaseline2 years ago

Personally, I would have sued the army for damages resulting from their making of decisions based on a blog post.

15 upvotesxgozax2 years ago

I agree with every point in this post except the subtle point at the end that Obama did a disservice to the country. Honestly he did the same exact shitty job Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc did for the people of this country. But that’s a political point though that I guess doesn’t relate to this sub.

6 upvotesbillsmashole2 years ago

You could have easily stuck to the story without bringing in your political opinion.

0 upvoteskarezzadick2 years ago

They're in need of some support with how the president is doing a horrible job

3 upvotesdatmanydocris2 years ago

The fact that any person would do that to someone who has put their life on the line to defend theirs makes that whole extra despicable.

3 upvotesDaspker7802 years ago

Honestly not surprised he was still denied promotion. In the Army, we have what's called SHARP (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Prevention). Actually just got yet another brief on it 2 hours ago.

It essentially tells Soldiers (Male soldiers, they rarely address female soldiers) That if you so much as look at a soldier or DoD civilian too long, they can claim you were mentally undressing them. Or if they have so much as one alcoholic beverage and you have sex with them, they can claim sexual assault because they were "intoxicated". It can even come down to as little as somebody being uncomfortable with you kissing your spouse while in uniform and them seeing it. One of my sergeants told my platoon that even if cleared of the SHARP report, it can still stay on your record that somebody filed a Sexual Assault/Harassment claim against you, and then when you try to get a job after the Army, you better hope your employer believes you.

The scariest part is when female soldiers say they will file a SHARP report against you because of a joke just to see if you break frame. Made that mistake one time and now I only talk to about 5 females in my company just so my career doesn't get ended.

2 upvoteshuge_gap2 years ago

This verdict is a step in the right direction. Still, highly unlikely he'll see much or any of that money and his career is already fucked. Doubt any insurance she had will cover that kind of tort. Maybe if she owns real estate theyll put a judicial lien on its sale. Maybe theyll try to garnish wages from her 9 to 5 minimum wage job and any cash she has in bank accounts that she hasnt already moved elsewhere. He won't get much.

5 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

No, you’re right. Obama was a weak pussy.

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

James Woods on twitter: "Well, Obama was pushed around like a hotel vacuum cleaner..." lol

5 upvotesSnazzy_Serval2 years ago

Obama's scumbag Army Secretary still denied it. Unreal what that man did to the country.

Do you really want to drag politics into this?

8 upvotesSara_Solo2 years ago

The guy presided over the title 6 expansion that led to kangaroo courts in universities. We can probably work backwards and attribute the creation of this sub to his policies.

2 upvotesArty7772 years ago

I didn't drag politics into anything. I posted a legitimate men's rights story, and part of that story is how the federal government has created a witch hunt. Can I help it if one of the political parties is driving 100% of this?

2 upvotesAnewAccount982 years ago

The federal government drove the witch hunt. So rape accusation shouldn't be reviewed and investigated? They did their due process and she was eventually found liable. Blame the perpetrator, not the system for carrying our justice.

One of the political parties, except that the secretary you mention is actually a republican and you're ragging on Obama's admin. Get off your MAGA horse. You brought politics into this by added half a sentence at the end of your summary. That removed would have kept this an unbiased men's rights story.

1 upvotesArty7772 years ago

So rape accusation shouldn't be reviewed and investigated?

Literally no one has ever said this. Classic SJW tactic. Create a fake position that the opposition has never advocated and then attack that position, forcing them to go on the defensive and defend something they never even said.

They did their due process and she was eventually found liable.

That is not at all what happened. I'm not sure who "they" is. If "they" means the army, well they conducted an investigation, found no evidence to support her 30 year old claim, then still decided to pull his promotion. "They" did not eventually find her liable of anything. He hired an attorney and sued her in civil court.

The no politics rule does not mean I have to close my eyes and ears and pretend that 90% of this was not driven by the Obama admin. I don't care if McHugh is a Republican. He was a political appointee in that administration carrying our the policies of that administration.

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

[permanently deleted]

3 upvotesArcadesRed2 years ago

A promotion of a general or admiral is always about politics as politicians get a say.

3 upvotesSnazzy_Serval2 years ago

Is this thread about an officers promotion or a man who is awarded a large sum of money for a false rape allegation?

2 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

In the US and other countries that get their legal traditions from the English, there are two types of trials, criminal and civil

Three, actually. The third being traffic court. It fails the definition of both civil and criminal wherein no loss of life or property is involved. But yeah.

2 upvotesTheBathroomSquatter2 years ago

Arty777 - Thank you for edit 2. It is poignant, rational, and realistic.

1 upvotesTheRealJesusChristus2 years ago

What if he didnt work for the money alone but for doing the job he loves? I mean i dont know if you can love being a general but i dont think somebody who went so far the ladder of the united states army would really need that money. Sure its nice to have it but he propably more into his job that this extra money.

1 upvotesAdamn272 years ago

Super stupid question here: Who will pay him the quazibillion amounts if the liar blogger does not have even the 1% of the money?

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

No one will. He likely will only receive a fraction of the total.

1 upvotesWatchingcluturefade2 years ago

This woman should be left penniless and begging on the street for the rest of her life. Make an example out of women who do this crap so it doesn't happen again, I WANT her life to be ruined.

That is what happens to men in this situation, the only way it is going to happen the other way back is if the same thing happens to them. It has completely changd the idea of chivalry to so many men of this era and it is just so sad.

I myself no longer will give money to help people "in need: on the streets, I don't hold the door open for women or others anymore, I have become a selfish prick. Why? Because I have been seeing more and more people be a selfish prick to me, so why should my new found success be shared with anyone anymore?

My taxes pay enough, now I want women to understand the full pain that many men go through when they are falsely accused.

This movement is destroying our society.

1 upvotesblair842 years ago

You should Google John M. McHugh and you will be surprised at his affiliation. Otherwise an excellent post.

1 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Been brought up already. I didn't know he was a Republican, but it doesn't really matter honestly. He was still part of that admin.

1 upvotesTruBlue2 years ago

I bet she does not have $5 to her name.

1 upvotesRommel05022 years ago

The bad news - he will likely not see a dime of that judgement

The good news - we now have legal precedent.

0 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Why don’t we have pillories anymore? Or a gibbet? Draconian punishment for thots please!

-1 upvotesWholesomeAwesome2 years ago

hey if they were all women,

that would be a a good data point.

-4 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

[permanently deleted]

-1 upvoteslItsAutomaticl2 years ago

Your piece about Obama supposedly being to blame for preventing his promotion is ridiculous. What have elected Democrats done to side with women in rape cases? I haven't seen a single law interfering with sex acts that wasn't championed by a Republican. And maybe the guy didn't deserve the promotion.

3 upvotes • [deleted] • 2 years ago

Every sentence you wrote is wrong. I just can't see how you could have been living in the same country as me for the last ten years and come to that conclusion. Obama is 100% responsible for what happened to this man. Democrats have done nothing but push the sexual assault lies. The colonel did deserve his promotion. He already had been selected, and it was yanked after the blogger wrote the story. You would know that if you read the article. Or the original post.

The mods said no more bickering about politics. I won't start anything but there's zero chance I'm not going to respond to these ridiculous shit posts as they come in. I don't care if you want to vote democrat or republican or green, but stop saying that the left isn't responsible for this mess, because they are.

0 upvoteslItsAutomaticl2 years ago

If it's so obvious, why can't you give me an example of an elected Democrat passing a law having anything to do with this? And sure, the man lost his job and it was 100% Obama's fault. He actually wrote the blog himself in his downtime. Lol. You're really smart.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.