~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[removed]
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics275 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
We keep some information secret to protect minors.
We feel no need to do the same to protect legal adults.
Also males are legal adults the second they are accused of a crime.
Women are minors until they die.
[–]Lotus7230 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
sigh
No issue with not naming the victim, most people would see that as common sense.
Shame the same doesn't apply to the accused. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? The usual argument I hear is "well naming them might encourage other victims to come forward!". Well, perhaps, but naming them might also have a hugely detrimental affect on their lives if they turn out to be innocent. But they're only men, so fuck them and their feelings, right?
I get so tired of stuff like this.
[–]High_Infected35 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In the case of adults, isn't the problem with keeping names of the accused private here in the United States( my country at the current at least) have to do with the Constitution. There's that whole bit which gurantees the right to a speedy and PUBLIC trial?
[–]TheLizardKing8935 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Public trials are for the defendant's protection. She/he should be allowed to waive that right just like they can waive their right to a speedy trial.
[–]panzercaptain9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Which most do, in order to gather evidence and come up with a case.
[–]Revoran15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Most defendents in the US waive their right to any trial period.
90% of convictions come from plea bargains (ie the prosecutor has intimidated you into pleading guilty or they'll pile on more charges and push for the harshest sentence) not from a trial by a jury of peers.
This isn't even specifically a men's rights issue (although men are disproportionately affected by it) - it's a human rights issue.
[–]panzercaptain5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
TIL, thanks.
[–]TheLizardKing897 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I know they waive their right to a speedy trial, why shouldn't they be allowed to waive their right to a public trial?
[–]panzercaptain3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Not arguing, just adding on to what you said.
[–]Neckbeard_The_Great6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You have the right to a speedy and public trial, but since the right to a speedy trial can be waived, it seems that the right to a public trial should be able to be waived.
[–]High_Infected4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The fundamental difference between these two only matters in the sense of why this right was even guaranteed in he Constitution. The speedy and public trial was to ensure that the government did not hold its citizens prisoners, political or otherwise( I know about the treatment of American socialists, communists, and anarchists in the early twentieth century), hence a speedy trial. But, the right to a public trial trumps that of a speedy one. The public trial right is necessary for the speedy trial right to be relevant in the sense of our discussion. People feared their government persecuting its citizens through in this instance closed door, so called "fair" trials.
The right to waive your right to a public trial does not exist. It would go against the Constitution to waive your right to a public trial. Damn them double standards.
[–]Neckbeard_The_Great2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+trial
I believe that this supports the right to waive a public trial. However, nowhere is it said that you have the right to choose between a public and private trial. So if the government and the defendant both want a private trial, they could, but neither could force a private trial.
Regardless of the legality, it does not appear that the defendants in this case are trying to remain private.
[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
yeah, public process. and in some states, juvenile names are allowed to be released
[–]holierthanmao1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yup. Habeas Corpus.
[–]darkgatherer1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Don't people also have a right to confront their accuser, who isn't hidden behind a shield of anonymity?
[–]RedditBlueit1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Not naming the victim is a custom established by the press. In the few cases that it was required by law, the law was struck down as an infringement of the first amendment. State laws have exceptions for minors (as defendants and victims) which have been held constitutional due to the special status of minors.
[–]Lotus7-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No idea I'm afraid, looking at things from the UK here.
[–]Invalid_Target29 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think common sense applies in so far as, it's pretty obvious that these assholes raped her, I'm not siding with the men just cus they're men, which seems to be the case ITT.
Videos, and cover-ups, and tweets, and texts, these things show this to be pretty cut, and dry.
it's sad that the men ITT are all acting like these guys did nothing wrong just cus they're male, and that's really troubling...
[–]Greyfeld18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You're missing the point.
Whether the accused are guilty or not still has yet to be determined. Until this changes, they should be awarded the same anonymity as the accuser.
[–]babystyle17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No Greyfeld, youre missing the point. These guys are guilty. We get the bias in the law. We understand that the press shouldnt be releasing names on the whole. This is a highly publicized case and the names have been made public for a while.
re missing the point. These guys are guilty. We get the bias in the law. We understand that the press shouldn
Mens rights is now defending actual rapists.
We have been accused of attributing to rape culture before. This is the first instance I´ve seen of that actually being the case. This isnt some he said she said bs case. These guys are on tape making jokes about raping this girl.
[–]Papasmurf1439 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
We aren't defending rapists, we're defending the constitution and men everywhere. Because in most cases it isn't so cut and dry. Because we need order and civility when dealing with even the most disturbing of cases. It's the same reason guantanomo needs to be closed and drone strikes need to be sharply decreased.
[–]babystyle5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I´m saying pick a case where it IS cut and dry. You are defending the alleged rapists right to privacy. Put on your lawyer hat for a second... would you want to take a case like this to try and overturn a law or bring a case like this to the supreme court? No. It´s a really shitty case to defend. I´m saying we shouldn´t be defending it. People not familiar with the history of this forum might by chance look at this post and think were pro rape culture. Thats my point.
re pro rape culture. That
[–]Apotheosis2751 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
whether the accused found is guilty or not should be irrelevant here
and btw you're using the wrong key for '
` is not an apostrophe, and on reddit it can change the font to courier.
[–]babystyle1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I`ve noticed ;)
[–]Papasmurf1431 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
a lawyer would prefer to use a high profile case because it is more likely to get traction and while he will take a loss on the case he will make a name for himself by changing common law. We must stand by all those who are wronged and can't just hang some out to dry. it is easier to explain why we are defending the obviously guilty than it is to explain why we compromised on our principles.
[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think greyfeld might have worded his comment wrong. These guys raped the girl, cut and dry, no question. The thing that is shocking to us is the policy, not the crime. Even though they did rape her the policy should consider them innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Also unsettling is the fact that these guys were not allowed a private trial. Do they deserve a private trial? Even though they are most likely rapists the answer is still yes. Now imagine a similar case where two men are accused of rape and did not do it. Due to the fact that the media would pin them as guilty right away it would not matter if they won the case or not because in the public eye "they got lucky at the trial but they're still horrible people so fuck them." This is the gist of what the men here are upset about.
One last thing, it is pretty shocking that so many people here are defending these guys even though they almost definitely did it.
[–]Greyfeld5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
When I stated..
Whether the accused are guilty or not still has yet to be determined.
I was speaking from a legal standpoint. Often, these discussions get morality and legality conflated with one another, so I can understand where a person might have assumed I was speaking of guilt from a moral standpoint, but I was definitely referring to it in the legal sense of the word.
[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Sorry, I didn't mean to call you out or anything. I thought that babystyle might have misunderstood your comment and missed the point, I was trying to word it in a different way so that he might have been able to understand exactly what you were saying.
[–]Greyfeld2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No need to apologize, you were correct, I was just adding my own little addendum :)
[–]babystyle4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thank you. I clearly see the point here. What I would argue is, is this really the case Mens Rights wants to put up for this breach of privacy for the accused?
Even if were not defending the alleged rapists culpability, we are taking a stance for the defense. I know there are more instances out there of this happening... why are we using one that doesnt support the reasoning for this argument? (i.e. a case where the accused were actually innocent or at least there was a question).
re not defending the alleged rapists culpability, we are taking a stance for the defense. I know there are more instances out there of this happening... why are we using one that doesn
[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'd like to think that a stand is being taken because these men are guilty. Hopefully we are standing up against a biased justice system and saying "just because these men are guilty does not mean they have no rights." But you know, that's not what most of the people here are saying. Sadly, many of the people here are blatantly defending obvious rapists just because they are men. Sad really...
[–]bobandgeorge14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The video has been made publicly available. The tweets they posted were originally public as well before they were deleted. I absolutely understand and agree with the fact that names should be kept hidden by the press... but, I mean, all of that info was available to the public before the press picked this story up.
[–]Greyfeld0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
And that makes it alright for the newspaper to spread their names?
[–]bobandgeorge8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well, yeah. These kids released all of this info without any outside influence to the entire world by their own choice.
By their own choice.
This isn't a case of an alleged victim naming a person or a group of people and the press picking it up. If it was I'd be right there with you, brother. This is a case of an alleged rapist telling absolutely everyone that has a connection to the internet, "Yep, I did it."
[–]Invalid_Target3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree with that, but I still don't feel any pity for them, it's obvious as fuck they did it.
If the mountain of evidence that exists proving these shits guilty didnt exist, I'd feel the way you do, but they did it, so fuck em, let em rot in a cell eating cockmeat sandwiches for the rest of the foreseeable future.
[–]Greyfeld17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You're welcome to feel however you wish about them, but that doesn't change the fact that laws don't exist just for the innocent. We either apply them across the board, or not at all. It's not the public's job, nor its right, to determine the guilt of another person; and make no mistake, that's exactly what happens when you plaster a person's name in the newspaper, whether that person has actually committed a crime or not.
I have no sympathy for those who do evil shit and get punished for their actions. But that process has absolutely nothing to do with publicly dragging them through the mud, and by allowing newscenters to do so, we're also giving them the license to do so, even when the accused is actually innocent.
Nobody said that upholding justice was easy. But sometimes you have to defend those who aren't worth defending, so that the innocent don't suffer for it.
[–]Invalid_Target-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
laws don't exist just for the innocent.
they kinda do.
It's not the public's job, nor its right, to determine the guilt of another person.
It kinda is...
[–]Wulibo8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm gonna butt in here.
You seem to fall into the most harmful and scary popular fallacy (in my opinion) regarding law and the government. Once somebody is a criminal, they do not stop being a human being. Maybe someone who has killed deserves death, maybe someone who has committed theft deserves some of their time stolen away, among every other thing society has decided is criminal. These people lose specific rights of the innocent when they cease to uphold the standard given unto them as members of society. However, no matter how horrifying, evil, or icky someone's actions have been, they never cease to be a thinking, feeling human being. I don't care about deserve. Maybe criminals deserve to be punished, fine. But that's not what the justice system is about. Criminals need to be punished, and the legal system has very specific reasons why.
Sentencing is based on the following: Denunciation, Deterrence, Separation of offenders, Rehabilitation, Reparation, and Promotion of responsibility. Nowhere in there is Punishment. Never do we ever do something to our fellow man to cause them pain. We put dangerous people in jail so that they cannot harm the innocent. We place punishment on people who act out of line so that others will understand it is out of line. We put deviants through systems so that they will come out better, more productive people.
There are huge chunks of law made specifically for people who have earned the label of "criminal." Throughout history, many societies have been cruel to their prisoners, and unanimously this behaviour is perceived as evil. So, we have certain rules around how criminals can be treated. Remember that "criminal" includes anybody who has smoked weed once, who has struck another human being, who has written something untrue and inflammatory about someone. Do we throw these people in the pit with multiple-murder-rapists? No! Why not? Because there are rules regarding what can be done to these people!
I know you're thinking that this doesn't apply to rapists, they've done something horrendous. In a lot of cases this is true, yeah, some of these people have committed an act so vile and abhorrent that they should be thrown in a hole with no hope of redemption. However, there is no clear line between petty criminal and aberration against humanity, so who gets to draw it? The answer is nobody. These people, again, are still people, and we will treat them with the same standard that is deserved by any human. I don't care what appalling thing you managed to commit that I could not possibly conceive of, you are still of the same build as me, and I will accept you as such.
As for it being the public's job/right to determine the guilt of another person, again, that's the very reason we have law. If we left it to the mob, we'd be following a system known as Anarchy. Vigilantism is rampant towards those accused of the truly monstrous crimes like rape and murder, and until a court, be it by a jury of peers or a judge alone, decides definitively that, beyond a reasonable doubt, they deserve protection from such extremists by any means necessary, the very least of which includes not displaying their identity in flashing lights.
This isn't even just about "think of the people who are innocent," it's about "if people are capable of what this person did, imagine what other people are capable of doing to them."
TL;DR if we lack law for the guilty, we lack any sense of civility and goodness.
[–]squirtlekin4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Do you trust other people to always judge whether or not you are innocent accurately, without the benefit of a trial?
[–]Invalid_Target0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
if all the evidence was presented to the public I believe the public would make a rational decision...
Only tidbits of info is usually given to the public, you can't make a decision without all the facts...
[–]FishInTheTrees-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Then tell us, O Great One, how our puny human minds can come to a decision without the facts as you do?
Long live King Hypocrite! HOORAH HOORAH
we have a great many facts in this case, we have all seen the tweets, the texts, and the videos, it's pretty much open, and shut, it appears that we do have most of the facts.
Guy's take video of girl being drunk, and dragged around, and boys saying things about her being raped.
That seems pretty much an admission.
[–]bobandgeorge1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What facts are you missing?
As part of the public, I find you guilty of not thinking with your whole brain.
[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
with a punishment of castration
The purpose of law is not to punish or to right wrongs, it is to keep societal balance. There are those that wish to gain an uperhand or just watch the world burn through methods that would destroy the system we have put in place if everyone acted in the same manner. In order to keep the societal balance we have worked so hard to achieve we must defer this behavior. If everyone goes around killing people they don't like then that would destroy the system. If everyone went around stealing whatever they liked that would destroy the system. If no one paid taxes that would destroy the system. And if everyone just took sex from whoever they liked then that would destroy the system. The system is not in place to right wrongs and correct injustices so that we all feel safer and better about putting away some evils. That is merely a by product. The system is there to protect itself. Nothing more, nothing less. There are the perversions of the system that breach into the realms of social issues where the system simply doesn't have any bearing or purpose. But that is on us to correct. We need the system as the system needs us. So the system protects us and we honor the system.
[–]dungone15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You're supposing that releasing their names has something, anything, to do with how much evidence there is against them. It doesn't. Their names are released simply because they were accused.
Their names can be released after they're found guilty.
[–]DrunkenWyvern1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So imagine your twenty or so and a women accuses you of rape. You are actually innocent and are found innocent, but when trying to get a job they see that you were accused of rape and you can't get a job because hiring companies don't want to take a chance, just because of the off-chance that you are guilty. The issue here is that the names of the accused were made public before a verdict was reached. This is NOT a Mens rights issue.
[–]newSuperHuman0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The whole point in waiting until after the trial is that the jurors should be your experts. They will spend much more time examining the evidence and deciding this guys fate than anyone on this thread will. It's their duty.
You wouldn't make any other life altering decision without consulting an expert. Wait for the jurors to give their opinion.
[–]RedditBlueit8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But it's people accused of heinous crimes that need protection the most. Just as it is controversial speech, unpopular speech, that requires the First Amendment protection the most.
You or I can have no pity for the alleged rapists, but we should still demand they get a fair trial. Either we aspire to be a nation of law and principle, or a mob.
Edit: changed "putty" to "pity", making the follow up incomprehensible.
[–]Invalid_Target4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
relevant
[–]theskepticalidealist5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
it's pretty obvious that these assholes raped her
Kinda miss the point mate
[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah. Not discussing the discrimination part here, but they totally raped her.
[–]Mrlord9917 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree with you. Just being named as a potential rapist nowadays can get you fired because "The company doesn't want to work with that kind of person", can get you attacked by the victims family/friends as vengeance, get your name smeared across the public surface, and so much more. Even if it turns out to be false because she was just covering up cheating on an SO or something, it doesn't matter because the world still sees that label branded onto your forehead.
None of that matters though because you COULD have done it & it's not their fault that any of that happened. Oh and charging her w/ filing a false report is a slap on the wrist compared to the hell you've been put through and possibly more..
[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is not only a men's issue neither is it a rape issue. Minor's who are victims male or female have their names hidden no matter what but the same does not apply to alleged perpetrators male or female. I think the reason we see it so much in men is because we see violent crime more on the news and proportionally men commit more violent crimes then women. It's a bias against the accused rather than a bias against men.
[–]newSuperHuman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree fully. People like to get fired up over these kinds of things, especially reporters. The only thing they love more is to share some 'juicy details" about a case like this with other people who will get fired up. It's a human thing.
Still, this is why the law should remain consistent. To take the emotional element out of justice. In this case, sure, it's ok to call these guys what they are. But in our search for the next "fix," reporters may crucify a guy who is eventually proven innocent, but it will be too late.
[–]Papasmurf1433 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Reading this I was like "fuck them, they did it, they should be hung out to dry". I stand by that vitriol but then I realized "oh wait, that's a double standard for all the cases in which a trial really would be necessary to determine guilt". Anger really does get in the way of cognitive processing and rational thought.
[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
this is common in news reporting. it seems obvious people ITT were either ignorant to this sort of thing before this story, or they just didn't care until it involved alleged male rapists and an alleged female victim.
i am a newspaper reporter and I get calls all the time from people upset their name appeared in the blotter, but nobody ever calls on behalf of the others who appear in the blotter. people just don't give a damn until it affects them, just like this thread. but in this case, affecting "them" means caring because it's — for some reason — a men's rights issue.
for a moment, let's consider if names were not released and if police reports were not public record. it would be much, much easier for police and the justice system to operate without accountability. imagine secret arrests taking place on a much larger scale and the public having no way to know about it. our system, for all of its faults, is — generally speaking, of course — an open one. a free system will always have pros and cons.
[–][deleted]9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You're right - it is common policy in news reporting.
It's also a terrible policy.
You people report the names of accused rapists willy nilly and then when they are found not guilty, it's no longer a story and thus you no longer give a shit.
If you're not going to name alleged rape victims, you shouldn't name alleged rapists either until they are found guilty.
Maybe so for some outlets, but I've never had to cover a story like that. I'd want to cover it to the full extent if it happened here.
in fact, I can think of one example of the media reporting when a woman made a false claim. Of course it came after the man was released from jail, but the media reported it. It's the one that ruined the young football player's potential career.
It goes back to having an open process. Arrests should be public to hold the police accountable in the event they wrongly make an arrest. As I said somewhere else, our system has pros and cons.
[–]dungone3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
for a moment, let's consider if names were not released and if police reports were not public record. it would be much, much easier for police and the justice system to operate without accountability.
Same argument is just as valid against keeping the accuser's name private. Imagine how much worse that would have played out against black men in the Jim Crow days.
We've already seen time and again that false rape accusations and other hysterical sexual scandals can bring down politicians and cripple entire governments. You don't need to have secret arrests and hold secret trials when you can just convince some floozie and a group of yellow journalists to do your dirty work for you. Assange, Clinton, DSK, etc., the list goes on. We're not talking about a name appearing in the police blotter here. We're talking wall-to-wall coverage in the age of the 24 hour news cycle, where every keyboard jockey on some corrupt conglomerate's payroll gets busy writing their own opinion piece with complete lack of accountability.
TL&DR: the imminent danger today isn't the secret police; it's the media. People need protection from it.
i share your concerns if we're talking television. generally speaking, print is less about the gossip and drama, and i feel there's more accountability.
and journalists on the take? . those kind of statements beg for facts, especially if you're implying that might be what's happening in this case
[–]dungone2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I was talking about writers such as those employed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, or Richard Mellon-Scaif, as well as the Think Tank employees who write propaganda pieces for major newspapers. Even the New York Times can't seem to do something as simple as review an electric car without lying about it, let alone inform the public honestly about going to war. These types of people may not be the majority of journalists, but it doesn't even matter. They're rarely challenged or censured, so they successfully frame the public discourse.
i feel that's fair. i guess what rubs me the wrong way is when people think all or most journalists are big fish at big papers. the bulk of journalistic work is done at the local level by many, many small newspapers
[–]Papasmurf1432 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
these types of people are not journalists
FTFY
accountability
That's the key word there. We don't need to be worried about the government's accountability half as much as the media's
[–]RavensHonor2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
And these so-called news outlets wouldn't have such high ratings because nobody would be paying them any attention without the "gossip." Lets face it, that's exactly what crap like this is until someone is PROVEN guilty. It's gossip that these rags use to fuel ratings and increase revenue. Get over it. Most journalists are nothing more than vultures willing to do almost anything for a story, no matter who it may harm in the process.
yeah, because journalism is such a lucrative career path. we're in it to sell trash and get rich.
[–]RavensHonor-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Did I say you or your colleagues specifically? No, I don't believe I did. For a supposed journalist, you don't pay attention very well.
lol, nice attempt at a jab. i was speaking generally, because very few journalists are making big bucks. this isn't a career path for those seeking large salaries.
of course there are corrupt or unethical journalists. you'll find bad apples in any profession. but the value of what journalists provide far outweighs the negative, in my opinion
If you are in it for the money you aren't in it for the truth. It's much like art in that sense. If you stop being in it for the sake of itself then you needn't be in it at all. It doesn't need you. It would probably be better off without you. (clarification- not saying "you" per-say.
It is just as possible to keep track of the trial of Jane doe vs John doe as it is to keep track of Martin vs Zimmerman. It also protects everyone in the case of the accused being totally innocent and undeserving of death threats and infamy. (Zimmerman totally did it and should go away for a long time).
but if the actual names are used in open court, it wouldn't be fair to make the media use the Doe makes. in other words, if private citizens can attend a trial in which actual names are used, they could go out and blab all about it. if Joe Blow can listen to the real names and talk about it, the media should report it
that doesn't at all excuse the media's witch hunting tendencies. just because i can walk around schools naked doesn't mean i should nor does it mean it should be legal. this is the most fallacious argument i've seen. you may want to try to make your point again because that was unintelligible as it gets.
just because i can walk around schools naked doesn't mean i should nor does it mean it should be legal.
You're clearly not following my argument. I provided reasons why it can be reported. I didn't say, "we do it simply because we can."
I'll even copy my initial comment in which I justified using names. It's the quote immediately after my next paragraph.
But if you guys want to argue why it should be illegal to use the names, go for it. You're totally entitled to try and change a law or the way information is released by courts/police. If you're passionate about this, go for it! But I'm still going to have conversations about it in threads like these, because I enjoy discussing ongoing issues with others of different mindsets or perspectives.
I've given you actual reasons why I feel it's important to use the names, so don't pull this bullshit about it being a fallacious argument, or unintelligible. If you're not going to keep up with what I've already posted, then this conversation needs to end, because it won't go anywhere.
that doesn't at all excuse the media's witch hunting tendencies
You're generalizing. Not all media outlets are gossip rags trying to use drama to sell papers or get viewers.
not following my argument
sorry about that, what i said was stupid and fallacious and juvenile. i was in a fowl mood because of previous unintelligible bullshit
But I'm still going to have conversations about it in threads like these, because I enjoy discussing ongoing issues with others of different mindsets or perspectives.
well it would seem you and i are two of a kind. i too am a lover of the debate.
police records can be public without releasing the names of defendants until after verdicts have been reached. journalists will continue to keep their eyes on court cases and can still do good reporting work without damaging the lives of defendants.
imagine secret arrests taking place on a much larger scale and the public having no way to know about it. our system, for all of its faults, is — generally speaking, of course — an open one. a free system will always have pros and cons.
just because a system has flaws doesn't mean they're necessary. we can certainly eliminate some of them without completely destroying accountability. that is, after all, the purpose of journalism, to keep the government accountable. you and i both obviously know that. I would never dream of infringing upon their rights because they are the one's who keep me safe. but when they overstep their bounds and cause a slew of collateral damage leaving shattered lives in their wake then i have to step in because they are being more trouble than they're worth.
but nearly the entirety of the major outlets most definitely are.
But if you guys want to argue why it should be illegal to use the names, go for it. You're totally entitled to try and change a law or the way information is released by courts/police. If you're passionate about this, go for it!
and hey, at least i can say that i respect you for understanding.
No were not saying that this trial shouldn't be made public, we're saying that they shouldn't release the names of the accused until they are found guilty. If they are found guilty then by all means it should be reported but the irony of this is that the victim who has nothing to lose either way the trial ends is kept anonymous, but the accused loses something either way the trial ends because even if their found innocent the fact that they were accused of rape still carries a tremendous, and over-proportionate amount of weight.
we've covered this already a few times. i have replied to this argument already
My bad.
[–]barbadosslim2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well, the burden of proof for convicting someone and sending them to prison is and should be beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof for staying away from someone is way lower. So knowing the names of these guys is in the public interest.
[–]Deckardz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Naming the alleged victim might encourage people who were threatened by her with rape charges to come forward as well, but that's not a good enough reason to name her either.
[–]Revoran1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well, perhaps, but naming them might also have a hugely detrimental affect on their lives if they turn out to be innocent.
Regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused, naming them prevents a fair trial in many cases.
[–]InspectoriSpaceiTime-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is a special case though, because there is a video of them raping her.
[–]cggreene63 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think it's because there names were already widely available./ Anyway, I hope these little pricks suffer in jail.
[–]nigglereddit20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If they're guilty, sure.
IF.
[–]skeemo90 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
so I guess no one payed any attention to the video of them tossing around an unconscious girl, gleefully joking in the background with her getting raped.
[–]nigglereddit39 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't like it any more than you, but they ARE innocent until proven guilty. That's the law and we can't just toss it out when we don't like it.
[–]CyberSoldier831 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
For once, I am going to just assume these guys are guilty. Of course there needs to be a trial and everything, but lets just say I am not going to be shocked when the jury reads a guilty verdict.
[–]Kardlonoc4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Do you remember Duke?
You really should not assume anything.
[–]captianbob1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Duke didn't have pictures, videos, and recorded texts.
[–]nigglereddit2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
IF that happens, no I won't be either.
But until then they deserve every opportunity to be found innocent.
[–]S7evyn21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Found not guilty. The US legal system determines guilt, or the absence of guilt, not innocence.
[–]nigglereddit-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thanks!
[–][deleted]-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Hey dude, why are you so interested in defending rapists? Don't pretend it's because of "justice" because if so you would be out actually defending the thousands of other people who suffer from miscarriages of justice. Instead you're here vehemently defending men who raped an unconscious woman on camera. Fucked up, man.
[–]nigglereddit6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Because until they are found guilty by that court, they are not rapists.
[–]iKs2798 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They are rapists if they raped someone, whether or not they are found guilty by a court of law.
Innocent until proven guilty only says that the prosecution has to prove the accused are guilty, not the other way around. In other words, in the absence of evidence, a court cannot sentence you or declare you guilty.
The press and people can do whatever the hell they want.
[–]Papasmurf1430 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So that same logic applies to cases where the man is obviously innocent. In that case I could skew the information reported to turn the public against him. And at that point it's over. Nothing he can do about it. Everyone hates him and his life is ruined.
[–]iKs2791 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That can happen either way (and it already happens). The reality is that the press and individuals have a responsibility to inform themselves properly before reaching conclusions.
the reality is that the public is a bunch of knee-jerk idiots who will take up a pitchfork at any opportunity. they don't want to be educated, they want to be a lynch mob. it's just entertainment for them. the press has a responsibility to respect the right o the accused to a fair trial. the freedom of press does not trump the freedom to a fair trial. if anything it's the other way around, but they should operate respective of each other and not get in each other's way when possible.
The court is what determines whether they raped someone or not.
The reason we have the court system is to stop people from deciding they "know what happened" and acting on it.
This is what happens when the court system is ignored in favour of "I know what happened".
[–]_SharkWeek_5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, if the court was what determined if a crime had happened or not, there would be no innocent men in jail, and no criminals free to walk the streets, should either have come in contact with the law.
The court determines if there is evidence enough to punish an individual for a crime, and is often wrong in both directions.
Yes, mistakes can be made. But it is NOT up to us to decide if that's the case, or to act on it.
Again, this is what can happen when bystanders decide they know what happened.
Which is worse:
A guilty person walks free and unpunished?
Or an innocent person is brutally beaten or even killed?
Neither is acceptable to any reasonable person, but the justice system is based on the idea that the former is preferable to the latter. Do you really want to overturn that?
[–]_SharkWeek_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, but you can still be reasonable. Pick a better banner than these two, otherwise you'll not be taken seriously. It's as if the police had put up Jeremy Morse as the mascot for the Fraternal Order of Police.
The court determines whether they are legally guilty. But a rapist is someone who raped someone. Simlarly a shoplifter is someone who steal from a store, whether or not he or she is caught.
There's a huge difference between being convinced something is true based on the evidence you see and exacting mob justice.
[–]nigglereddit1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You have no evidence, just part of a video which you've decided is incriminating. You know nothing about the context other than what you've been told. That is no different to finding a broken door, a missing necklace and a neighbor you don't like, then deciding you must do what must be done.
I'm not arguing this specific case, just that in some cases it's OK to believe someone is guilty if there is overwhelming evidence that points to that fact.
[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So you live in some kind of alternate reality where you can rape somebody on video, but it doesn't count until you're convicted?
If I'm on security tape robbing a convenience store, whether or not I'm actually tried and convicted doesn't mean shit. I'm still a robber.
[–]nigglereddit8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.
That is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, from this reality right here.
If they are proved guilty in such a trial and the court determines that it is necessary, I will throw the switch, put the rope around the neck and push the plunger myself if I have to. But not until then.
Nobody is saying "I think these guys are rapists put them in jail without a trial". It's just that we can call them rapists, they raped. We saw them rape.
[–]nigglereddit0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Then if they're found not guilty and released, you'll admit you were wrong and respect the court's decision?
No I will think there has been a serious miscarriage of justice. Why is our flawed court system suddenly the end-all-be-all?
If they are found guilty, they won't respect the court's decision. They'll say they weren't granted a fair trial, and appeal. And remember, the court isn't here to decide if they absolutely did or did not do the act, a jury could decide they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were responsible, and it wouldn't make them not rapists, just people who weren't convicted.
[–]nigglereddit3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Then no matter whether they're innocent or guilty, you will always say that they did it and treat them as if they did.
This is one of the issues this sub exists to fight.
[–]johnmarkley4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is absurd. You asked about if they were found not guilty by the court, not if they were actually innocent of the charges. You act as if a jury verdict literally decides whether the accused actually committed the crime or not, with the objective facts of the alleged crime itself indeterminate until the government opens up Schrodinger's box and looks.
As a factual- as opposed to legal- matter, the accused have been guilty or innocent from the moment the alleged crime occurred. The law should treat them as innocent until proven guilty, of course. Observers should be cautious in stating opinions on what happened due to the horrific effects a wrongful or mistaken accusation can have on its victim, absolutely. The actions by feminist groups, popular media, and others to attack those principles are disgraceful and should be vehemently opposed. But there's nothing with expressing a carefully considered belief that someone is guilty, whether the legal system agrees or not.
Women who get away with committing crimes because of sexist bias in the court system are innocent of those crimes in the eyes of the law, too- does that mean MRAs should speak as if those women are actually innocent, and conclude that there was no bias after all? Of course not. Respecting the presumption of innocence as a principle of a just system of law does not require us to abandon individual judgement.
You act as if a jury verdict literally decides whether the accused actually committed the crime or not
And you act as if you literally decide whether the accused actually committed the crime or not.
If you were right, the court system wouldn't even exist; we wouldn't need it. But we do need it, exactly because some people want to decide guilt and innocence based on nothing more than edited highlights and their own feelings.
[–]johnmarkley1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
For Christ's sake, do you actually read what you respond to?
I'm not suggesting we assemble a lynch mob and start stringing people up. I'm not suggesting we dispense with due process. I'm not saying anything even hinting at that. I'm talking about having a belief about a question of fact based on your own judgement, rather than treating the court system like it's an infallible authority so sacred that people shouldn't dare disagree with it aloud.
I asked it as a rhetorical question before, but now I'll make it a real one. If a woman gets away with a crime because of sexist bias in the legal system and so is innocent in the eyes of the law, does that mean we should speak as if that women is actually innocent, and so conclude that there was no bias after all? For instance, if a woman is caught knowingly making a false accusation of rape or committing perjury in a rape trial but isn't prosecuted for it, should we pretend she's committed no wrong against the falsely accused?
He is not defending rapists. He is defending the constitution. Stop perpetuating the idea that rape should be held in any higher account of absurdity from any other crime. That's not what justice is for. Those men are innocent until proven guilty and we should stand by that notion. HOWEVER. the second they read that guilty verdict me and I will be right there beside you ready to toast their anal destruction. I'll buy. (but seriously prison rape isn't cool (except for Sandusky, fuck that asshole (pun very much intended)))
[–]Mrlord994 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Exactly how it should be with any crime. Is it seen that way? Rarely
[–]Super_delicious2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree.
[–]Confusedkillers2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The reality of the justice system is that you're guilty until proven innocent. People have been convicted of crimes in the past, and after spending half their life in jail new evidence arises that says, "Hey, this guy wasn't guilty after all." It's terrible that it happens, but that's the reality.
They were innocent until proven guilty until proven innocent. It's unfortunate but the system works more often than not. We just need to work to get the failure rate down and stop the collateral along the way.
I have not heard or seen of this video. Is there a link to it, or a link that describes what happens?
[–]skeemo6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Basically a bunch of high school football players are dragging around an unconscious girl talking trash saying she's asking for it. Even though she isn't conscious.
It's everywhere man. Just look up Steubenville.
[–]bobandgeorge4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You posted this 7 hours ago, but just in case you haven't seen it yet, it's a pretty tough thing to watch, dude. You have been warned.
[–]SnuggleBear2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Link?
[–]Wulibo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
To repeat myself...
[–]skeemo7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thoughtful and insightful. However a few things.
I believe in second chances and believe that people guilty of a crime once their debt to society is paid then they deserve a chance. However, some crimes I do not believe deserve redemption. Sex offenders I believe are one of those crimes. And I do believe that due process will show how truly vile and disgusting these boys were and they deserve swift, decisive, painful punishment.
I believe society has been abusing us of the male persuasion for quite sometime. I am a victim of it myself. However, I see no value in defending these types of men. Pedophiles and rapists do not deserve the work you and other put in. When trying to bring our issues to the front it will not do us any justice to bring up a case like this.
If I had a son and he did this. I would shoot him myself. The video of these boys doing this shows a COMPLETE lack of empathy, and is so disgusting an demeaning to this preteen girl that it sickens me.
This particular case also is bad for us because of the cover up by male school officials. And the police are under investigation do covering this up. And anonymous broke the cover up.
These boys deserve the worst punishment for this crime.
It's nice that you are expressing what you believe and I am very interested in your opinion. However it is not the opinion of the state. If you run for office and campaign to get your opinion made law and succeed or back someone who does it then i will respect your opinion as much as i do the current law. Until then, everyone gets their second chance (except for the obvious exceptions) and the system works more often than not.
[–]Willusions19 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If? Did you see the video? I'm all for equality for both genders, but holy shit these kids are evil.
[–]nigglereddit7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This isn't about gender, it's the law.
Yes, it looks clear to me too. But we are not the court. In fact cases likes this are exactly why we need the court: we all know what it looks like, but appearances are not enough to deprive human beings of liberty and perhaps their lives. We have to be sure.
It's not about if these kids did This specific thing. It's about the next guy who is accused of rape. Or the duke lacrosse team that is accused of rape or the roeyhlisberger who is accused of rape (no opinion on his case) or anyone else. We must stand by their rights as we stand by everyone's because they are in the same boat and they are still human (if a more disgusting form)
[–]cggreene-10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Pretty damning evidence form that video, but this subreddit will defend any scumbag.
[–]likferd21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I was not aware the "innocent until proven guilty" was equal to "defending scumbags".
[–]iKs2792 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Innocent until proven guilty applies to the courts, not to what people think. Obviously people are going to have an opinion about whether or not someone is guilty, based on the evidence made public. And that's the reasonable thing to do. If here the evidence indicates they are guilty, then reasonable people will think they are guilty.
This does not preclude a fair trial, as long as the court acts as if they are innocent until the prosecution proves them guilty.
And afterward? If they come out in the real world not guilty? Let's take the .0001% that they are innocent. They will never be able to get a decent job and will be hounded and shamed for the rest of their lives. I don't like standing up for them anymore than I like standing up for radical feminists or the westboro baptist church but we all have rights.
The right you have is to be tried fairly (innocent until proven guilty), not to control what people think about you based on the available evidence.
If they look very clearly guilty, reasonable people will think they are guilty. If it later comes out that the evidence was (say) tainted or new exonerating evidence is made public, reasonable people will think they are innocent.
Saying "don't have an opinion until the verdict" or "assume they are innocent even if your logic tells you otherwise" makes no sense.
it's not controlling what people think, it's just avoiding predisposing the jury to believe guilt which involves keeping the accused anonymous.
reasonable people
The assumption that even half of people are "reasonable" is, unfortunately, ludicrous. people are much to emotion driven to be reasonable. confirmation bias has already skewed the entire nation to want to hang these boys and will not allow any room for anything to convince them otherwise. it doesn't just do it with this case, it does it with every case the media reports on. if there is a pile of evidence that would be classified as circumstantial at best but can draw a pretty bright bulls-eye on a defendant then everyone will want blood. just look at zimmeran, even before it was obvious he did it and there was still reasonable doubt everyone was still sending death threats to old people.
I agree that the jury shouldn't be predisposed to believe guilt, but that's pretty independent from what random people will think when they read the news.
It's true that people aren't reasonable, but that's always been the case and the mantra "innocent until proven guilty" won't change that. In the case of Zimmerman, the public evidence was most definitely inconclusive and reasonable people thought/should have thought that it was best to wait and see. Unreasonable people thought what they thought.
the unreasonable people being the vocal majority and pretty near everyone including myself whom i consider fairly reasonable. half of it was the media's sensationalism and blowing things out of proportion and pundits encouraging people to assume guilt which is what happens in these cases.
if the media has to keep their traps shut until a jury is selected then people can go in untainted. even afterwards there isn't any reason to use names.
[–]nigglereddit16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a defense.
Should we just scrap that?
[–]High_Infected3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, but the evidence simply makes it appear pretty clearly that they are guilty. It would be hard to find a way to counter this video from what I have read about it so far.
[–]nigglereddit9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Then they'll be convicted.
But until they are, they are to be considered innocent. That's not a minor technicality, it's an absolutely essential component of a fair trial.
[–]chcltthndridn4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The only people qualified to say that they are guilty is a jury. Not you or me or anyone else.
Sometimes it's important to make personal decisions based on what you've witnessed, and not rely on a formality provided by your government.
[–]nigglereddit5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If you were a witness, you'd be taking part in the trial.
You're not. Which is why you quite rightly have no part in it.
[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Fortunately for you the members of this subreddit will not be the decision makers in the trial! But since we're talking about this subreddit's inclination to defend scumbags--as opposed to the United States justice system's interpretation of the situation-- I feel my comment is still appropriate!
[–]free2live2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The United States Justice System's interpretation: They are innocent until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
That's not really what my point is.
[–]typhonblue7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]yourotherusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In case you didn't realize, that video shows people under 18 having sex, watching it violates child porn laws. You've been warned.
[–]notarapist722 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Its evidence in a case, it needs to be seen, not necessarily by us, but watching said video won't get you charged with CP
Yes, but I double that typhonblue is on the jury. Not sure why the warning is being downvoted because although IANAL, I'm pretty sure you don't want to be searching for child porn or get caught with it. I've watched enough Chris Hansen specials to know that.
Someone might not realize that it counts as child porn because, oh, i don't know, the Media isn't treating the victim or the accused as kids, but as adults..
Yeah, just like people who think alleged terrorists should have some sort of due process instead of being locked up without trial at Gitmo until the end of time hate America, right?
[–]Kardlonoc6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
After the Duke case I am holding back judgement and you should too.
[–]Dresdain44 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You guys are reading to much into this. I do not see it as a big deal. Those guys really did rape her, thats why lulSEC hacked their websites and emails.
I am all for mens rights but this is just plain silly. Lulsec got into the kids twitters and they have all sorts of pictures of the girl legitimately passed out and them carrying her around. Some of the things they said were awful about her. things like "whores deserve to be pissed on" "you dont sleep through a dick in the butt" "song of the night is rape me" The shittest part is the town is protecting the boys because they are on their football team, who is pretty good.
Heres the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOTUiNUVhsE
[–]Mrlord999 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"Innocent till proven guilty by a jury of their peers". Yea, there may be damning & obvious evidence that shows guilt w/o a doubt, but until that time that a jury pronounces a guilty verdict anybody accused of any crime is innocent
[–]iKs27917 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They are innocent in the eyes of the court, they are not innocent period. The same way you are a shoplifter if you steal from a store, whether or not you are caught.
[–]Papasmurf1434 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The principal is more important than these scumfucks. Their punishment does not warrant the scrapping of our entire belief and legal system.
[–]iKs2794 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There's no scrapping of our beliefs or legal system. They should still be tried fairly, which includes the prosecution having to prove they are guilty and not the other way around (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). Doesn't mean they are actually innocent of the crime until a jury changes their status.
them being tried fairly includes a jury that isn't predisposed to guilt because of the witch hunt the media sparked.
The media should give the public the evidence that's available. Each individual should use reason to determine whether they think the suspect is guilty or not (and whether that's possible to tell at this point).
Some media outlets will start witch hunts, but that's freedom of expression for you (until they advocate violence).
The jury should theoretically come to the trial a blank slate, but in practice that's pretty impossible.
well of course it's an impossibility, that doesn't mean "well we can't bring them in totally blank so just let the chips fall where they may", you have to work to insure that the jury is as fair as possible. that's why they interview jurors then recluse them.
[–]Dresdain4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Do you rage every time you watch the news and they say they are looking for someone for a crime. Do you write the news station in outcry about how those people are innocent and people shouldn't know to be on the look out for them? Shut the fuck up.
[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yes that is true but in case like this those proceedings are a formality. There is no real defense for these kids.
[–]OThomson7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That doesn't matter, their rights do not go out the window as a result.
Their rights have not been violated.
And don't forget that they could sue Reuters for libel. They won't though, because this is not libel.
[–]OThomson0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Apples and oranges
Not a complete thought
[–]Wulibo-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree that they should get due process. I'm saying in this instance it's a formality. There is to much evidence against them IN THIS CASE.
[–]AnnArchist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There isn't proof in that video that they raped her.
They can joke around about rape without having in fact committed a rape. Saying mean things doesn't mean they are rapist.
I'm not saying they are innocent, but they haven't been found guilty yet.
[–]Dresdain5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You are right it is not absolute proof. But I strongly believe they are guilty, and the town was protecting them, thats the shittiest part. There are plenty of cases where women have been named before proven guilty. Look heres one local to me Here Where is your outcry that she shouldnt be named until proven guilty? Do you get mad at every time you watch the news and they say they are looking for this person for this crime and they havent been proven guilty? I am sorry, I chose your comment to reply to frustration built up from all the others as well. I just think it's stupid you cant name suspected rapists that happen to be male without a outcry from /r/mensrights.
Sometimes this subreddit makes mountains out of molehills.
[–]Nerdloc-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Okay, first off, she turned herself in, effectively admitting guilt to the crime.
Secondly, there SHOULD be an outcry over this because it's complete bullshit she's only being charged with relatively minor charges AND was put on paid administrative leave. What alleged rapist have you heard of that was still paid by their employer after they were charged with this type of stuff?
Sodomy in the 2nd degree is a Class B felony, meaning she can get out in about 2 years if she were found guilty on this charge. School Employee Sexual Contact with a Student Under Age of 19 is only a Class A misdemeanor, meaning she can only get a maximum of one year for this. Sexual Abuse in the 2nd Degree is also a Class A misdemeanor, but can become a Class C felony. So again, she can either have a maximum of one year from this charge, or a minimum of two.
Since I can only assume that they're charging her for one instance of "sexual abuse", that means she's probably going to be out in around 5 years, and that's assuming they really go balls-out with the sentencing and she gets time off for good behavior (which most people with Class C felonies usually get). Since her maximum charge is only a Class C felony though, she could be out a lot sooner than that. Realistically, I'd say she's only going to be serving 2-3 years.
Rape in the 1st Degree has the exact same criteria for Sodomy in the 2nd Degree and Sexual Abuse in the 2nd Degree, yet they refuse to charge her with it... Why? Because she'd have to be held accountable for her actions instead of the comparative slap on the wrist she's receiving with her current charges? Most likely, yes. Compare this to an 18 year old boy sentenced to 10 years in prison for getting a bj from some girl a few years younger than him and you'll see why there should be more outcry against this type of stuff.
[–]Dresdain2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
She pleaded no contest actually, turned herself in because it was all over the news. A few years ago my friend fucked a girl who was 14 and he was 18, he did not get 10 years. He got a year of unsupervised probation.
[–]Wulibo-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bronghits33 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They have a policy of not naming the rape victim. These fucking idiots made a video about raping and potentially even killing this poor girl. I honestly hope they rot in jail, their idiocy is what makes us look like we support rapists and pigs
[–]Papasmurf1438 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I hope they rot too. But I hope they get a fair trial more than anything. You know what isn't fair? Having an entire jury predisposed to hang you because the news can't keep a tight fucking lip. Forming lynch mobs won't help anybody. We clarify that we don't support these actions but we also don't support the kind of mob mentality that this kind of "journalism" results in.
[–]Wulibo-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]32 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
actually, the alleged rapists have been on television and shit trying to defend themselves. the girl has stayed silent. they've put themselves into the public eye.
anyway, depending on the laws in that state, it's perfectly legal to release the names of juvenile suspects while protecting the alleged victim.
this is NOT a fight MRAs need to be fighting.
[–]ZeroError11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't disagree with anything else you've said, but something being "perfectly legal" does not necessarily mean that it's right. You may be missing the point of this subreddin.
i do think it's right, though, to release the names. As I said in another post:
[–]ZeroError5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
By similar logic, then, we should release the names of alleged victims. Y'know, to avoid victims accusing others of crimes falsely and getting away with it.
Either way, I think releasing the name of a minor is ridiculous. If they're an adult, fine, do it. But not a minor. Also, when did anybody say anything about making police reports private?
While I acknowledge false reporting of crimes is a serious problem, I think that is outweighed by the chance that a victim might not come forward if their identity is revealed. And, it is worth noting, that victims don't always get their identity protected. It depends a lot on the area and crime.
Also, much of the time (again, depending on the state or agency), it's the media outlets that protect the victim's identity. The reasoning is, they don't want to contribute to possibly discouraging others from stepping forward in the event they are raped
Either way, I think releasing the name of a minor is ridiculous. If they're an adult, fine, do it. But not a minor.
Minors deserve the same rights as adults with regard to holding police accountable for wrongful arrests.
Also, when did anybody say anything about making police reports private?
I added that because oftentimes, the names of people involved are taken from police reports. I was adding that to the conversation to provide more context and to make my comment more well rounded.
downvoting an opinion? you guys are just like SRS. what a joke
Police reports can be public while keeping the media on a Jane/John Doe basis.
sure, media can and often does use discretion. we don't report suicides, for example
i see suicides on the news all the time. especially when they're in high school and the classes have huge memorials. but no one is going to be tried in those cases, so the media's discretion is irrelevant.
but no one is going to be tried in those cases, so the media's discretion is irrelevant.
not really irrelevant. of course this is a different issue, but we don't like to give people who commit suicides attention because we don't want someone committing suicide to get the attention. (not to imply people commit suicide for attention).
but that's just a policy in my newspaper corporation and the local radio station.
[–]Papasmurf1435 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In one state it is perfectly legal to kill a native American if you have five or more if them on your property. So guess we should be cool with that. Especially if there were a big case where some guy was able to use the law to defend himself from a hoard of Indian gangsters. That would totally excuse all the guys who just round up indians and drag them onto their property so they can kill them. (this doesn't happen but the law is real enough)
apples and oranges. obviously killing an Indian is much different. i see your point, but i think it's too extreme
i'm not comparing the crimes, i'm comparing the practice of law which is in all cases the same.
[–]sibqm_lmvm28 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah... A lot of articles seem to have that problem. As for the content of the article itself, previously saying that you wish to have sex with someone does not equal consent, and the boys' lawyers are idiots for suggesting that.
[–][deleted]15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
previously saying that you wish to have sex with someone does not equal consent
What?
Certainly that consent can be later rescinded (and the prosecutors can certainly present evidence that it was), but if saying that you want to have sex with someone isn't consent, then there is simply no such thing as consent.
[–]sibqm_lmvm56 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Telling your friends that you are sexually attracted to a person does not mean that the person in question. Has permission to have sex with you. And if she was passed out on the floor, I'm pretty sure that her former desire to have sex with him still doesn't give him permission to fuck her unconscious body. That's what I was saying. Of course, this is all alleged.
[–][deleted]24 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It is, but there's an actual video of it. I'm not going to post a link.
[–]elmstfreddie11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'd hope not, since it's CP
[–]Peter_Principle_-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Kinda depends on what sort of permission was given, doesn't it? I've had girlfriends in the past give me permission to have sex with them when they're asleep or if they happen to be passed out drunk. I even had one girl do it deliberately because it was her fantasy and being the GGG guy I am I obliged her. And if someone is going to tell me that's rape then they simply have a poor understanding of reality.
[–]sibqm_lmvm6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Do you really believe that this is the case here? I'm totally okay with the stuff you mentioned, but this girl was passed out on the floor at a party. People generally don't press charges when others fulfill their fantasies.
Also, what does GGG mean?
[–]Peter_Principle_-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Do you really believe that this is the case here?
One of my ex girlfriends told me she experienced her first orgy at 15. I haven't heard anything else about the story in the OP, but I wouldn't say the idea that this was a fantasy fulfillment gone wrong is beyond the realm of reasonable possibility.
People generally don't press charges when others fulfill their fantasies.
But they're certainly prone to when a sense of shame is coupled with pressure from friends or family.
Good, Giving and Game.
[–]sibqm_lmvm3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
One of my ex girlfriends told me she experienced her first orgy at 15
Was she passed out on the floor, or did she consent to it? Because I really don't think that that sort of anecdote excuses the fact that two guys messed with a girl who was out cold.
[–]Peter_Principle_-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Was she passed out on the floor, or did she consent to it?
Which one, the orgy ex, or the 'fuck me while I'm asleep' exes or the 'fuck me while I'm passed out' ex? Unconsciousness and consent are not mutually exclusive, as I have pointed out before.
From what we know, the girl who passed out at the party did not say "hey! If you see me blacked out on the floor and unconscious, please proceed to do what you want to me! I totally am in a right state of mind to say such things!"
Your stories aren't really applicable in this scenario.
From what we know, the girl who passed out at the party did not say
Do you know for a fact that she definitely did not say that? Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
And, just because I'm curious, are you saying that if she did not say those exact words, even if she said something like "Hey, Bobjim, you know what I think would be fun? If you and Jimbob over there kinda, yknow, [wink wink] me while I was passed out," that it would still be rape?
[–]sibqm_lmvm2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Technically it would still be rape because she was drunk out of her mind.
[–]Peter_Principle_0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Technically, blacks weren't human beings in the US until passage of the 13th Amendment. An action that is a technical violation of the law and is not immoral means that the law is wrong, not the action.
[–]sibqm_lmvm1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm curious as to how many more ways you can come up with to make this scenario not rape. It makes me wonder about how well you accept consent.
[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's ok, your absolute disdain for due process, misandric bigoted hatred of sexual minorities, and willingness to judge in the face of an absence of evidence makes me wonder if you're the type of person who regularly makes false rape accusations, acts like a golddigger, cannibalizes children and then drives 55 in the passing lane. Herpa derpa do!
Or hey, maybe different people have different perspectives, but we can realize that reasonable people can disagree and we can let each other retain our basic humanity. Yes? Maybe?
Nah, never mind. That's fuckin' commie talk.
: /
I have given my boyfriend consent to have sex with me in my sleep. I have been dating him for five years +. He is not a random guy at a party, and I was not smashed when I told him that.
The facts that we do have are that a girl was passed out and naked on the floor. Two boys found her and fingered her while she was unconscious. Videos were taken and shared, and rumors were created and spread.
I'm all for due process. That's part of why I hang out here. However, if these boys are innocent, then they fucked up big time. Everything in this case gives the idea that they raped her. Therefore, based on the evidence, I'm leaning towards the possibility that they actually raped her. Meanwhile, you are looking for all the "but what if she actually consented, which she couldn't have, because she was smashed.
To me, being a men's rights activist means making sure that innocent men do not go to jail, and that guilty ones do. I will not defend men who have early committed a crime. Even if this chick said "have sex with me" to some extent, she was too drunk for that to be valid, given that she was seen vomiting several times and was later unconscious.
Meanwhile, you are looking for all the "but what if she actually consented,
I am offering as a hypothesis one possible explanation that I have personally experienced.
which she couldn't have, because she was smashed.
We've been over this, and you're just wrong. You can provide prior consent.
The facts that we do have
"On the first day of the trial...prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter told the judge the girl was too drunk to make a decision..."
You're basing your facts on the opening statements of the prosectuor? You do know that opening statements aren't evidence, right?
False accusations happen and the system is stacked against men and boys who face them. And they're frequent. Hell, you're throwing them at me right in this thread. Why? Because you have actual evidence that I am a rapist? Ha. It's because you're wrong, losing the argument, and you know how well that chickenshit technique works as a distraction.
I'm not basing that off the opening statements. I'm basing it off the fact that repeated vomiting and unconsciousness is a sign of being too drunk to consent.
I'm not basing that off the opening statements.
Then what are you using as a basis?
repeated vomiting and unconsciousness is a sign of being too drunk to consent.
Yes, you've established your premise several times now. And when I point out the exception, i.e. people can establish prior consent, your response is what? Or are we going to take yet another trip around your circular logic race track?
[–][deleted]28 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think "previously" is the qualifier there, the fact that she was unconscious for the actual act makes it pretty non-consensual, regardless of what she might have said earlier in the night when she was capable of speech.
[–][deleted]-12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Allegedly unconscious for the alleged act.
Also, what if she explicitly said "you can fuck me later when I'm really drunk"? I haven't seen evidence that such a statement was uttered, but we certainly haven't seen all the evidence in this case. If that hypothetical were to occur, would you still say it was a rape?
[–]KittiesHavingSex22 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I disagree with your moral standings on this issue. First of all, there is apparently a video of the incident, so
is as good as confirmed.
Now onto your reasoning of consent. It does not matter what she said before. If she was unconscious she had no means of opposing the intercourse. So first of all, what kind of a twisted fuck would have sex with a limp body of a 16 year old? Secondly, her prior consent could have changed over the time. You do not know if she still wants to have sex with you. You are not a mind reader. And even if you were, you would not be able to read hers because she is freaking unconscious!!! There are plenty of false rape reports. I do not see this as one. In fact, I want to see both of these jackasses behind bars.
EDIT: Holy shit! A reddit gold? Swwweeeettt! Thanks!
[–]aardvarkious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"Is as good as confirmed" is not the same as "found guilty in a court of law." I really do believe their identities should be kept secret until they are actually found guilty.
[–]KittiesHavingSex2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I never said I disagreed with that statement. Both parties' identities should be kept secret. Furthermore, I think that there should be a way of adding the names of people filing false rape reports to a Sex Offender Registry (or equivalent). Things should be equal.
[–]blueoak90 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"I disagree with your moral standings on this issue. First of all, there is apparently a video of the incident, so Allegedly unconscious for the alleged act. is as good as confirmed. "
Do you always believe everything you see on a video? Really? Video is not evidence unles there's a chain of custody established.
It looks as incriminating as hell. And video or not, if someone is passed out, any prior consent is no longer in force. But a video is not as good as confirmed.
[–]KittiesHavingSex5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I am not saying that this is what the courts should base their decision off of. I do not know what the chain of custody was. I was simply replying to the other person's argument that the act occurred only allegedly. If there is a video of the act it is as good of a piece of evidence as the internet community will get it's hands on. I am not saying that we should just skip the trial! It was a simple rebuttal, though one that might have been worded poorly.
[–]blueoak91 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Okay, I follow you there, and basically I agree - not proof but pretty damning.
"It was a simple rebuttal, though one that might have been worded poorly."
Or I was reading too much in to it... Whatever, this is reddit, not an essay writing class. You didn't word it poorly at all.
[–][deleted]-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My understanding is that the video is not a video of the alleged rape itself, but rather a video of the alleged perpetrators talking about the alleged rape. I believe they use the word "rape" in the video, so it is certainly incriminating. However, it could be easily argued that the word has a variety of meanings - particularly to teenage boys. (e.g. "I totally raped Bob on Madden 2012! Beat him 72-7 and I was playing with Detroit!"). I do not believe that any videos have surfaced that alleged to show the actual rape in process.
As for the consent issue... I am talking about a hypothetical situation, you want to bring it back to the specifics of this case. I'm not talking about this case. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where someone has a fetish where they want to be "used" while in a drunken stupor. Obviously, they can't consent to that once they are already in a drunken stupor, so the only possible option would be to give prior consent.
I would think that with adequate prior consent (hypothetically, signed documents and video agreeing in detail in advance to the actions that would take place once the drunken stupor was induced), such actions would not be considered rape by most people (although most people would likely be disturbed by the subject matter).
Well, I do not know the specifics of the video in question. Regardless, I do agree that they should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty.
As for your other point... that is way out there. I suppose that there is just about any act that, given sufficient effort, could be agreed upon beforehand and not viewed as a crime. Hypothetically it is possible. People have all sorts of fetishes, and if a rape fantasy is yours - great! whatever rocks your boat! I agree completely. Are you agreeing with my statement, however, that outside of such an arrangement - one which is unlikely to happen in real life - having sexual intercourse with a person that is under considerable influence of a drug (alcohol is also a drug) is immoral - at the very least - and (in most cases) should be illegal? Sorry for the run-on sentence haha. I hope my point is still legible.
Are you agreeing with my statement, however, that outside of such an arrangement - one which is unlikely to happen in real life - having sexual intercourse with a person that is under considerable influence of a drug (alcohol is also a drug) is immoral - at the very least - and (in most cases) should be illegal?
In the context of the Stubenville Ohio case, based upon the information that has been disseminated to the public, I would agree. And in any similar situations, I would certainly agree. And in any case where one person was 100% stone-cold unconscious, I would agree.
But being "really drunk" but still conscious? It really depends upon the situation. Casual acquaintance, or been dating a few weeks and one party is considerable more drunk than the other? Most likely rape. Married couple whose 3 year standing "routine" is to go out for drinks and dancing on Saturday night, and then come home and have sex? Probably not rape, even if one person is "considerably drunk" and the other is the sober designated driver. Any situation where both people are equally intoxicated? Grey area, but either they are both rapists or neither one is.
Basically, it boils down to how routine sex is in your relationship and how long that sex has been routine. There certainly isn't a specific line that I can draw, but if the first time you have sex with someone, they are drunk, odds are better that you just raped them. If sex is on-going, common and long-standing in your relationship and you end up having sex when one of the parties is drunk, odds are better that no rape occurred.
I definitely agree that there is a gray area. I would say that the things to consider are: like you said - previous relationship between the two; how much more intoxicated one person is than the other; the behavior just prior to sex. Here is one thing that could be a good "line" beyond which, I would consider something as rape. It's activity. Assuming at-time consent, if you actively progress the situation by verbally indicating interest in sex - no matter how drunk, it's not rape. If you actively initiate or are involved in something that is sexual in nature - not rape. If you are able to physically or verbally stop the encounter from occurring, but you do not - you consent - it should not matter if you were drunk. Thus, this case would be considered rape. A one night stand with someone you would normally not have sex with is not rape. Actions performed under influence see still your responsibility.
[–]KittiesHavingSex0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Man I want to post a full reply, but I have to run to class!! I will answer in an hour or so!
[–][deleted]18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If she said "you can fuck me later while I'm drunk" she's an idiot, but so are the two guys who thought that fucking an unconscious girl was considered a good time for everyone involved, so yes, I would still maintain that since the girl was unable to give consent when sex was initiated, she was raped.
I'm really not trying to argue that drunk women should be completely void of responsibility of their actions. Drunk adults have responsibility for their actions behind the wheel of a car, so I find it more harming than helpful that women can negate their actions by claiming they were too drunk to make a responsible decision; it makes women effectively minors once they're a certain blood alcohol level, which is insane. I'm just drawing the line; if a drunk person is incapacitated to the point of unconsciousness, whether someone has sex with them or draws dicks on their face, it's non-consensual.
[–]baskandpurr0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What if she said "I'm going to take this sedative and I want you to have sex with my body while I'm unconscious". Would that still be rape? I'm not attempting to argue, I agree with you. I'm just trying to get a definition of where you would draw that line.
Without seeing the video, I'm pretty certain that they did rape this girl. I definitely wouldn't have sex with a unconscious female.
[–][deleted]10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm drawing the line at where a person sees an unconscious drunk girl as an object to toy with with as opposed to a human being who should be granted control over their body. I'm drawing the line at having sex with people who can't verbally express consent; i.e. the mentally handicapped, animals, and unconscious people.
The idea of someone willingly sedating themselves so someone could have sex with their unconscious body is foreign to me, but I'm sure that's a fetish and someone somewhere is doing it. It reminds me vaguely of two other cases where, regardless of the victim's preceding consent for the offense, the act committed was still illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sharon_Lopatka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
Extreme cases, I understand, but you still get in trouble for euthanizing a sick family member, and that is arguably a morally right decision in some cases.
[–]baskandpurr2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That gave me something to think over. I consider both of those acts to be illegal, but not a case where somebody explicitly asks for sex while unconscious. The reason is that killing is illegal, whether consensual or not. Rape is illegal but sex is not. If somebody gives consent for sex, then it is not rape. It's apparent there was no consent in the case this thread is discussing.
Strangely, I support assisted suicide but not consensual killing. I guess the caveat is that the assisted suicide should have a reason. It should be kinder than the suffering caused by living. In both those cases the people killed were healthy as far as I can tell.
Dude, you're forgetting that there's photographic and video evidence of it. This one's a pretty clear-cut case.
I wish people would understand that the "video evidence" is a video of an alleged confession. Not video of the alleged rape. Both are damning, of course. But people are seeing headlines and assuming that there is a video of the actual rape. There may be, but if there is, the evidence has not been made public.
[–]Frankly_George-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Downvote for Jezebel link.
Fair enough. It was just the first in the list.
It does matter how clear cut it is, we must observe the rights of individuals in such cases until the courts have spoken on the issue.
[–]theskepticalidealist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
wow thats like feminist victimhood porn
(I wonder why this is being downvoted, they will be using this for years to work themselves up into to a righteous anger about how men like to rape so much and to project this video onto all men)
I say all the time that I would fuck Ryan gosling,l (straight guy over here) and am totally sincere about if. But if he found me passed out and had sex with me it'd still be rape (though I wouldn't press charges because I love his movies).
[–]CACKENBOOLS1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think the only defense might be to not remember either. Everyone was raped that way.
[–]barbadosslim1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Deny rape culture now, motherfuckers!
[–]Hypersapien2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This was sent to me in an email from watchdog.org
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/college-rape-victim-faces-expulsion-speaking-out
I do feel that the girl there is being treated unjustly, but watchdog had a problem with the fact that the alleged rapist couldn't be named.
I unsubscribed immediately.
[–]babystyle21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
These guys are fucking assholes. I am ashamed this is posted in men`s rights. There is audio evidence of them admitting to the rape.
Shit like this IS NOT HELPING OUR CASE!
[–]Papasmurf1436 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's not the specific case as with most everything. It's the principle. These guys did it and I would never defend them. I would however defend my own right to not be paraded around as a rapist without having been proven to be one.
[–]Vegemeister-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
When defending the rights of the people, it is occasionally necessary to defend the rights of scoundrels.
And you're consistently using backticks where you should be using apostrophes.
Side note: is anyone else noticing an epidemic of "2 cool 4 school" punctuation? We had that person with the curly braces last week.
I know, I am on a friends old laptop with a spanish keyboard setup. The apostrophe's in a different place. didn`t realize backticks did this.
[–]iheartbakon18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In Canada, it is illegal to name the accused if they are under 18. This article is technically illegal to view in Canada.
[–]aardvarkious15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
[citation needed]
I know it is illegal for the media to publish the names of minors being accused here in Canada. If the media broke this publication ban, it would be held accountable. But I have no knowledge of any law that would make it illegal for someone to view that article. Even if a law like that exists (which I seriously doubt), does it actually apply to the names of foreigners being tried in foreign countries by foreign media?
[–]Electroverted17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If you think that this particular case is a good example to use for Men's Rights
You're gonna have a bad time
[–]PantsOnHead7192 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I understand the principle but based on the evidence...I wish there were a better example....
[–]TheDemonClown15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In this particular case, I don't give a fuck. There's no real "alleged" shit to be seen here - these guys were all on video from multiple people & talked about their crimes on Facebook & Twitter as it was all happening. They're guilty, they're shitty human beings, so fuck their privacy. They clearly didn't give a shit when they dragged a drunk girl from party to party, humiliating & violating her repeatedly.
[–]notarapist72-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There's hard evidence, but they're innocent until conviction
[–]TheDemonClown8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Maybe the court officials have to treat them that way, but I don't. A mountain of indisputable evidence means you're fucking guilty, period. In most trials, where there's reasonable doubt, I wholeheartedly agree in following procedure to the letter. But this is the very definition of an open-and-shut case.
[–]Greyfeld6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You don't get to decide when "reasonable doubt" is or isn't a given. Yes, it looks like these kids did it, and they will pay the price for their actions. But we don't get to decide who does or doesn't deserve their anonymity. That sort of thing is decided once it's been determined by the courts if the defendant is innocent or guilty.
We have to remember that "anonymity for the accused" doesn't only apply to those we think are innocent. It applies across the board.
[–]TheDemonClown-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This isn't me thinking someone is guilty or innocent - this is simple logic & reason telling me that these idiots are guilty. And it's a damn good thing that I'm not in charge of the court system for these motherfuckers, because I'd have 'em both chained to rocks while vultures ate their damn livers.
[–]Greyfeld4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This isn't me thinking someone is guilty or innocent - this is simple logic & reason telling me that these idiots are guilty.
But if you give the power to the public to decide when somebody is guilty, then who gets to make the final decision? How many people are going to get Guilty stamped on their foreheads, who never actually did anything wrong, because "public opinion" said that they were guilty before being convicted in court?
Even if these kids are guilty of what they're being accused (my personal opinion on that is irrelevant), by allowing others to strip them of their rights and their anonymity before being judged by the court, you grant that same power and right to any and all defendants, guilty or not.
Our personal opinions on the guilt of a specific individual should have no bearing on the rights that individual has within the justice system. "All are treated equal under the law," means both the innocent, and the guilty.
[–]TheDemonClown3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's not personal opinion - they are on camera & on record as having done all the things they're accused of and there is no mystery as to the context of said actions. This isn't like someone up for murder where the prosecution says, "We have video of you committing the crime!" and then they show something that could very easily be either cold-blooded murder or self-defense. I get what point you're trying to make, I simply don't give a shit when it's a bunch of degenerate assholes from Smalltown, U.S.A. who violate someone who actually is innocent, document every aspect of their crime for the lulz and then get caught. This isn't "innocent until proven guilty" or even "guilty until proven innocent" - this is "guilty from the moment this event saw the light of day, trial is now just a formality".
[–]Greyfeld3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's not personal opinion - they are on camera & on record as having done all the things they're accused of and there is no mystery as to the context of said actions.
If they're guilty, and you're so absolutely convinced of that fact, then why can't you just wait for the justice system to do its job? What is the purpose of spreading their names to the public, if you already know they're going to get tossed in prison?
[–]TheDemonClown1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Reuters was simply reporting the story. They said their policy was to not name the victim, after all. In cases where reasonable doubt isn't so laughably absent, however, I can see why there might be an issue between not naming victims & not naming the accused, though. This wasn't the justice system - this was a news agency. Though, given how I said that I'd like to see them all suffer the Prometheus treatment, I'm not exactly patient with the justice system, either XD
Yeah well, that's why the MRM is pushing for anonymity for the accused. But that means that both the guilty and the innocent are protected by it. Not everybody is logical and reasonable about judging people who are on trial for a crime (or even just arrested for a crime).
[–]TheDemonClown0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yes, that does suck. Casey Anthony, for example, should've never become the public circus it became because it almost got her convicted. Mountain of circumstantial evidence doesn't = smoking gun. Now, if she'd posted video on Twitter like, "LOL buryin my dead baby", that's different...
The fact that the public at large doesn't make that sort of distinction is exactly why anonymity for the defendant needs to remain intact. You and I may be fairly logical about the whole thing, but we are not the majority, and it's what the majority does that has to be accounted for.
But the media would be doing this without the mountain of indisputable evidence as would the public. Are you okay with that?
[–]DramaDramaLlama13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think it's a great policy not to name rape victims.
I think it's a great policy (that should be immediately adopted) to not name accused rapists until found guilty.
Accused criminals*
[–]thisistheyear7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I read in another article that the reason these names were released was because of how widespread and common the dropping of their names were. I don't think its right, but this might be misrepresenting Reuter's position on this.
[–]aardvarkious6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That is a bullshit reason to release the names. Just because their names are common in the community right now doesn't mean their names will be linked to a rape accusation in internet searches years from now. Well, now their names will be linked to that thanks to Reuters.
[–]thisistheyear0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I see your point, I still think its a little petty to point this out as a problem with Reuters when this information is widely available. The issue should be with the news stations that originally broke the story.
I'm not saying it is OK for them to do this, but I can see why they would see it OK such that they do not have to fall behind other news outlets.
"A little petty"? You don't get it, do you.
Reuters and other such institutions hold all of the responsibility. They are institutions. There can only be a standard when the largest and most powerful institutions are held to a standard.
This is akin to having a minimum standard for pay, but saying "well, that guy hiring an illegal immigrant to mow his lawn isn't paying minimum wage, so why should McDonald's or Walmart?" - and that's how you get slavery.
What bullshit.
[–]yourotherusername-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
And MILLIONS of people will read the 'accused of rape' stories. few will read the 1 or 2 "not guilty" stories. So what's going to get a higher ranking in the search engines? Yeah, good luck finding the outcome of the trial 5 years from now if they some how manage to be innocent in this case.
I don't see the problem here?
Imagine that you are accused of rape. You are innocent but some coincidental evidence does a pretty good job of tying you to it. While it isn't enough to convince the jury it is enough to convince the public so you walk free as you should. However, you are hounded, shamed, and your life is ruined because of the performed notion that you are a rapist that got lucky. All of this could have been avoided had the media kept you anonymous.
Disclaimer: these boys are guilty as hell IMO but I'll wait until the verdict to start drinking to their demise.
yeah but the part in red underlined was "It' Reuters policy to not name the victim". I don't see anything wrong with allowing the rap victim to remain anonymous.
As for the anonymity of the accused, if the person is innocent, then it really is a shame how that can ruin there lives. 'If incontinent' begin the key word. It would be nice if the court system granted anonymity to the accused, if justice wants to be blind. However the media tends to go on witch hunts all the time, just look at the Casey Anthony trial, Rubin "Hurricane" Carter or OJ Simpson. Only one of those three people where innocent, was jailed, two of them walked and all of there reputations where destroyed by the media.
that's only one part of the underline. it is showing a juxtaposition between the victim's right to anonymity and the accused's right.
The media needs to stop being allowed into court rooms. these trials aren't circuses for us to gawk at. bodies of deformed individuals used to be carted around the country to entertain the masses. we now look at this as disgusting. hopefully we will be able to look back on this type of showcasing and say the same thing.
[–]TheCrookedTruth2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm confused and it'd be awesome if the knee jerkers could not reflexively downvote this because I'm genuinely asking.
I keep seeing people in this thread talking about obvious proof and how they're clearly guilty because of the video.
My understanding was that the infamous video of the kid making crude rape jokes was of a kid who was not involved in the alleged rape in any way and wasn't even a witness to any of the events. I understand also that there were pictures of the alleged rapists carrying the drunk girl around, but I don't understand how that's "proof" of rape either. Am I the only one who's ever carried around a passed out drunk girl and then somehow managed not to rape her? And from what I've heard, there's no actual physical evidence she was raped--semen, rape kit, etc.
If there's some more smoking gun evidence here I'm not aware of, please tell me. I'm not saying they're innocent, but from what I've seen (unless there is more I have not heard) this could just as easily be a case of a few jackass teenagers playing telephone about a nonevent and making crude jokes and rumors about it to the point that it got taken seriously.
If there's more, tell me. Seriously.
[–]dm2872 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This isn't the best example. There is actually a mountain of evidence that the boys in question actually did commit the rape, along with 100s of text messages and video of the event (provided by Anonymous).
[–]WilliamLooby1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What's this shit huh, did you not hear what they were saying ? all for sticking a fork in the ground to stand up for our rights too but this isnt the same as the other issues that concern this subreddit.
[–]bloophead1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This was a lot worse than just any basic rape. It was way more vile and cruel. And they posted a video on YouTube making jokes about her possibly being dead. It was sickening. Not to say it wouldn't be cruel and vile already.
This is fucking outrageous.
Threads like these are why I love this sub. Intelligent discourse about the rights of all people and an attempt to help eachother grow in our understanding of a fair world. It's much better than all the memes and stories about funny little instances of idiotic radical feminists.
Eh, I agree with your principle, but I really want to waive it in this particular case. Really wish you would find a different one to defend this point, seeing as a central issue to this case is the accusation the the alleged rape was being covered up by small town corruption. Of which there's a significant amount of individually weak evidence which when taken together forms some rather strong evidence for the cover-up having happened.
Am I happy that one right must be sacrificed to bring justice? Yes, but do I think it might in this case be necessary? Yes.
Shit, I wish it was always black and white, but it's kind of grey here. It doesn't help that there's a large amount of social media put out by the accused and their accomplices detailing their abuse of a child, and a suspicious history of it occurring with the Big Red Rape Crew.
[–]factorygrrrl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I hope my comment doesn't go totally unnoticed because I actually came here to post something and ask a question about that. Well not Reuters in particular, I read something about it on Jezebel.com and was shocked/dismayed to see that they named the minor defendants in the case. I think that's really screwed up.
[–]mkarolian-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Virtually all news organizations won't name the victims of a sexual crime: http://www.spj.org/rrr.asp?ref=68&t=ethics
[–]fraughtgamerpro-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Look at the pic. The victims name seems to be jane doe.
[–]_SharkWeek_-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This case is another reason why men's rights forums have (an unfortunately) bad name.
There's a video of it, and then of them saying "ha ha we raped her" and them tweeting "ha ha we raped her" and all that's here is some bullshit about due process.
Yes. The court system is infallible. No criminals shall slip through their grasp, no innocent man put in jail. What ever it takes to help you all sleep at night after defending these most lowest form of shit.
*Downvote me all you want, these sorts of stories are your undoing. You want allies, you have to work to get them.
**Vocally and actively condemn the act of rape while you seek to balance the system. This thread appears to support rapists, blame victims, and deny the real statistics about rape. You don't have to laude or excuse the act of murder to work towards preventing unlawful detention of innocent men accused of the crime.
Wow you MRA losers have a real problem finding sympathetic people. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for these assholes who are ON VIDEO raping a drunk girl?
[–]OThomson-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Congratulations, your an asshole, we are defending the legal rights of all individuals, you on the other hand are claiming that rapists should not be treated as humans, which belies your belief (incredibly stupid as it may be) that Rape is somehow the worst crime imaginable, it's not get over it.
[–]kaikaibean13247 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But if it was a woman accused of raping a man you would all be going bat shit insane to get her name and to spread it across the Internet. I can sympathize with you MRAs when you guys actually make sense, like "I have to pay hundreds to my ex in child support and I only get to see my kid every other weekend! Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she should get custody!" I get those. Those make sense. And the ones about men being raped and being told to "suck it up," those make sense, too. But calling rapists the victims? That's fucked up. The rapists are on video joking about raping the girl. They are not victims, they're assholes.
[–]OThomson2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But if it was a woman accused of raping a man you would all be going bat shit insane to get her name and to spread it across the Internet.
The only way to change the law is to take those who are protected from it's worst excesses and expose them to it, to make them live as those who are not protected live.
But calling rapists the victims? That's fucked up. The rapists are on video joking about raping the girl. They are not victims, they're assholes.
Since when did being an 'asshole' mean human rights stop existing, OH MY GOSH HE WAS SUCH AN ASSHOLE I KILLED HIM GOOD THING IT DOESN'T MATTER!
C'mon man, fingers out your ass time.
[–]kaikaibean1324-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
OH MY GOSH HE WAS SUCH AN ASSHOLE I KILLED HIM GOOD THING IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Yes, because putting rapists' names in a newspaper is the same as killing a person.
I'm sorry, but i'm still trying to understand, do you believe that if you are accused of committing a crime your rights should be violated before a court of law has proven your guilt?
[–]kaikaibean13241 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I never said that. There is a thing called freedom of the press, and if there is a video and multiple tweets incriminating rapists, then yes, print their names.
Freedom of press indicates a freedom to post the names of rape accusers too, however that is illegal in my country, so i ask you this, why do you support the Accuser having rights and the Accused not, remove the video evidence and look at this as a hypothetical, why does one accusing another of a crime deserve protection.
[–]kaikaibean13242 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I won't put the video evidence aside because I am not talking about all rape cases in general. I am talking about this specific one where there is solid evidence. Were this is case where the only evidence was the victim's accusation and the fact that he/she was raped, then no, you should not publish the accused's name.
You are currently talking about the principal. When we talk about one rape case we talk about all criminal cases. We set precedents and make common law. I will stand up for these boy's right to a free trial just as much as I will stand up for the westboro baptist church's right to freedom of speech.
There's a thing called a constitutional right to privacy and a free trial. If the media wants to report on it fine, but they are having a seriously damaging effect on anyone who might be selected for jury duty in this trial.
[–]MattWorksHere-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
At first I was like
But then I was like
[–]notarapist72-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm so sick of anonymous
[–]Edgemere-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So 4chan is getting involved now?
[–]funkgross-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
the hell
they raped a girl
are you guys really defending the rapists of a girl
they weren't victims, they were rapists
get off your stupid horse there's such little oxygen up there
[–]bronghits3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
the nice thing about a justice system is that it allows for us to choose the correct legal outcomes, not outcomes that are determined by emotion.
[–]fff322 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I dont think anyone is defending their actions but the protection of their identity until there has been a verdict.
[–]sketchylear0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Unfortunately, I think it's more of a situation where people aren't given enough information overall and are defending the accused because the article paints a vauge picture and the girl herself admits to not remembering how everything actually went down. The video that was leaked and went viral pretty much ruins any chance of anonymity before an actual trail...and it was pretty fucking damning as evidence. Like I'm sure that kid said 'rape' like 50 times.
they weren't victims
The accused have rights too. Not just the victims. They deserve every freedom afforded them in the consitution just as much as she deserves justice.
[–]notarapist721 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"They raped a girl"
You can say that after the conviction
[–]funkgross1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
there's like pretty damning proof
like videos of them gloating about raping the girl
the girl actually having been raped
you know, all that good shit
you guys are just on your stupid moral standards about how men are always guilty and blah blah blah but sometimes it's not about being a man, but just a piece of shit, that makes the punishment.
or something
i don't really care. this subreddit is like one step above /r/atheism so whatever
[–]notarapist723 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
While there is lots of hard evidence against them, and they probably will be guilty, you're not a judge, the system says they are innocent right now, do it by the books
[–]Ragnar09-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Cant they just make her name public online? I know I would.
[–]OThomson4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Some guys in the UK went to jail for doing that in regards to a rape-case over here, i wouldn't recommend it.
[–]Ragnar09-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's called doing it anonymously.
[–]OThomson8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
How anonymous do you think you really are?
[–]Ragnar090 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There are ways to do it. Tor is one example
No protection is 100%, and the risks far outweigh the rewards, changing the law is actually the easier option here.
[–]Ragnar09-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Changing the law takes time and doesn't help you when you are getting screwed now does it?
Fine but if you get caught, well don't say i didn't forewarn you.
It's not like I'm out there raping bitches. This is in case some cunt decides to throw a false shit at you
[–]OThomson1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Some cunt throws false shit at me, which means i have to fight a legal battle to prove innocence, why would i a person who already has to fight a broken legal system do something which is illegal and is imprisonable? because even if i wasn't innocent, i just made myself guilty.
[–]Ragnar091 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Because the game is rigged. You have to do whatever it takes to win
[–]scottishonion-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If she didn't remember what happened, how could she report an incident the next day? Also, shouldn't they not name the guys names since they are "rape victims" too?
[–]Collective82-10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
As sick as these kids really are I am curious though. They were drunk so therefor thy were raped by her as much weren't they? I mean women who are drunk as well as the man can claim rape so why not in this case? I do believe these kids are vile and again am not saying they are innocent but just wondering if they could use the same card women do.
[–]SaveTheManatees5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They didn't all get drunk and then have consensual sex. The girl passed out, and the guys took turns raping her while filming it. If you don't get the difference between that and two equally drunk people having sex, you're a fucking moron.
[–]Collective82-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Before you toss out insults consider what I had asked. Yes she was passed out drunk and these kids were drunk. If you can't give consent when drunk then how can you rape some one if you can't consent to your own actions. I'm showing a double standard that's used these days. And amplifying it.
[–]SaveTheManatees4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it does not turn someone into a calculating rapist. Your analogy doesn't work. The law regarding alcohol and sex isn't designed to be interpreted as "No one should ever be held accountable for their actions while drunk". It's more like "deliberately taking advantage of someone's inability to take care of themselves is predatory and immoral".
I agree however women have been using it to not take responsibility for their actions with sex by sayin "oh I was drunk he raped me" the next morning after consensual sex and that's what I was going for here.
[–]SaveTheManatees1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But, like I said, your analogy doesn't work.
[–]Collective820 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Whatever. You understood what I was saying and are playing semantics. Have fun with that.
[–]SaveTheManatees2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Lol. If writing off the entire point of your argument is just "playing semantics" then, uh, sure bro.
Idiot.
[–]cooltom2006-12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I seriously don't understand how girls can make reports of rape when they blatantly state they can't remember what happened, seriously wtf?!!!
[–]sketchylear2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There was an earlier post of the video mentioned in this snippet and it was kinda obvious that whatever was going on, it wasn't right.
[–]Falkner09-13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!
Justice for Jane Doe? The guy in the picture is absolutely convinced these guys are guilty and that this girl was raped, AND HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HER NAME!
Meanwhile, the girl admits she doesn't remember what happened, and had to piece it together from Facebook comments etc.. This shit is Poe's law at its finest.
EDIT holy shit, I just realized something: suppose this girl really was raped. she must be pretty traumatized and humiliated, since at least some people in her community will know who she is. If that's the case, do you really think she wants a group of protesters publicizing it? Yeah, they're here to protect women all right.
Dipshits.
double edit OK, I just looked up the case, and apparently there's a lot more evidence for rape than this snippet mentions. Including a video of a couple of these guys carrying her out the door into a pickup by her arms and legs. My bad, probably. Still, my statement about the idiot protesters stands, especially them making it worse by appointing themselves superhero defenders.
[–][deleted]-26 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Lets see make it public knowledge who the accused are, both of whom are minors and then don't let the public know who accused them. It seems like this is a typical false accusation as well. Get drunk at party, have sex with one or multiple men who are likely drunk as well, forget or feel regretful, claim rape.
[–]arguecat338 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There is a 12 minute video of one of the rapists going on and on about how the girl is dead and how she was raped, making into a sick joke. The girl was roofied. And thus unconscious as she was assaulted multiple times. There are photos of her being transported about by her hands and feet. Even if she "enthusiastically agreed" to have sex with any one of those boys, that goes out the window once she goes unconscious. Rape is rape is rape.
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't know the facts of this particular case. They may very well be guilty and I'm not going to defend them per se.
However I think that the accused in cases like this should remain nameless (even though I'm guessing everyone in the town will know who is being accused) until after a conviction (or never if it is tossed out).
Especially for minors.
[–]MrAnonymousHimself3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Agreed, and this doesn't just go for rape cases either. I think that minors accused of stealing, assault, etc. should also not have their names plastered all over the news or in articles on the web. And that goes both ways too...boys or girls that are accused.
I did not know about that part. However I was really drunk once, hooked up with a women, fell asleep when she was riding me and according to one of my friends who walked in she was still going. Yes she was drunk as well.This was about 4 years ago, was I raped as well? I don't feel raped, I only feel slightly embarrassed my buddy walked in on it.
[–]arguecat34 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Did you just equate a child who was roofied to a drunken escapade of yours? Night and day, my friend.
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Technically if she had been drinking at all you raped her.
Even if you were passed out.
[–]PumpkinLongshanks11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah, you should know what you're talking about before you say things like this. There's clear evidence on the side of the accuser that she was indeed assaulted by the accused, and this has been available for months now. The video was released by Anonymous and became public knowledge shortly thereafter.
While I agree that keeping the names of the accused under wraps until after the trial is procedurally sound regardless, it doesn't change that this is in fact a legitimate accusation and that something should be done about it. While I am certainly in favor of protecting men from false accusations, I'm not in favor of doing so if it means cases where there is clear evidence of rape get thrown out because the default assumption is that it's a lie. That's as bad as what feminists are doing to us and we can't win if we sink to their level.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics275 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lotus7230 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]High_Infected35 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheLizardKing8935 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]panzercaptain9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Revoran15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]panzercaptain5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheLizardKing897 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]panzercaptain3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Neckbeard_The_Great6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]High_Infected4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Neckbeard_The_Great2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]holierthanmao1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]darkgatherer1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RedditBlueit1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lotus7-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Invalid_Target29 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld18 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]babystyle17 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1439 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]babystyle5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Apotheosis2751 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]babystyle1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]babystyle4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bobandgeorge14 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bobandgeorge8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Invalid_Target3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld17 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Invalid_Target-9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wulibo8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]squirtlekin4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Invalid_Target0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]FishInTheTrees-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Invalid_Target3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bobandgeorge1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dungone15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DrunkenWyvern1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]newSuperHuman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RedditBlueit8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Invalid_Target4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Mrlord9917 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]newSuperHuman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1433 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dungone3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dungone2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RavensHonor2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RavensHonor-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DrunkenWyvern1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DrunkenWyvern1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]barbadosslim2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deckardz1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Revoran1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]InspectoriSpaceiTime-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cggreene63 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit20 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]skeemo90 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit39 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CyberSoldier831 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Kardlonoc4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]captianbob1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]S7evyn21 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2798 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1430 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2791 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_SharkWeek_5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_SharkWeek_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2791 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2791 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]johnmarkley4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]johnmarkley1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1430 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Mrlord994 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Super_delicious2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Confusedkillers2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1433 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]skeemo6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bobandgeorge4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SnuggleBear2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wulibo1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]skeemo7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Willusions19 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cggreene-10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]likferd21 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2792 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2791 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2791 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit16 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]High_Infected3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chcltthndridn4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nigglereddit5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]free2live2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]yourotherusername1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]notarapist722 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]yourotherusername1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]johnmarkley1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Kardlonoc6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Dresdain44 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Mrlord999 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs27917 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1434 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2794 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iKs2791 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Dresdain4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Collective822 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]barbadosslim2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]barbadosslim2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wulibo-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Collective822 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AnnArchist2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Dresdain5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Nerdloc-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Dresdain2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wulibo-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bronghits33 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1438 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wulibo-5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]32 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ZeroError11 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ZeroError5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1435 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm28 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm56 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]24 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]elmstfreddie11 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_-6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_-4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sibqm_lmvm1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]28 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-12 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KittiesHavingSex22 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]aardvarkious1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KittiesHavingSex2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak90 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KittiesHavingSex5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak91 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KittiesHavingSex2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KittiesHavingSex2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KittiesHavingSex0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]18 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]baskandpurr0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]baskandpurr2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Frankly_George-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CACKENBOOLS1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]barbadosslim1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Hypersapien2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]babystyle21 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1436 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Vegemeister-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]babystyle4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]iheartbakon18 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]aardvarkious15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Electroverted17 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]PantsOnHead7192 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheDemonClown15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]notarapist72-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheDemonClown8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheDemonClown-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheDemonClown3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheDemonClown1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheDemonClown0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DramaDramaLlama13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wulibo8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thisistheyear7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]aardvarkious6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thisistheyear0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]yourotherusername-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheCrookedTruth2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dm2872 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]WilliamLooby1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bloophead1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1431 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factorygrrrl1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mkarolian-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]fraughtgamerpro-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_SharkWeek_-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kaikaibean13247 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kaikaibean1324-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kaikaibean13241 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kaikaibean13242 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MattWorksHere-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]notarapist72-4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Edgemere-5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]funkgross-6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bronghits3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]fff322 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sketchylear0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Papasmurf1432 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]notarapist721 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]funkgross1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]notarapist723 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Ragnar09-7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Ragnar09-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Ragnar090 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Ragnar09-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Ragnar090 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]OThomson1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Ragnar091 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]scottishonion-9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Collective82-10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SaveTheManatees5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Collective82-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SaveTheManatees4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Collective82-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SaveTheManatees1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Collective820 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SaveTheManatees2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cooltom2006-12 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sketchylear2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Falkner09-13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-26 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]arguecat338 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics12 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MrAnonymousHimself3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]arguecat34 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]PumpkinLongshanks11 points [recovered] | Copy Link