Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DATE RAPE! DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?
CookingWithCarlo.com ^ | Oct 16 2003 | Carlo3b Dad, Chef, Author

Posted on 10/15/2003 10:05:10 PM PDT by carlo3b

 

DATE RAPE!  DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?


Did he or didn't he?  Has our compassion for an alleged victim in a particular type of crime, allowed our Bill of Rights to go past due! 

Did she or didn't she?  It appears there are more the a few Americans that are now beginning to rethink the compassionate laws that awarded unquestioned protections, to unproved accusations. It has become obvious that these well meaning measures may have gone too far. Has today's culture allowed itself to believe only one side of a conflict where a woman is considered, without ever hearing the other? Are all men sexual brutes?

Would a woman lie?

"It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses (of men) exhibit their tyranny."
-James Fenimore Cooper

Men, I learned early on were by nature, bigger, stronger, and much more aggressive than women. The men in my life, great grandfather, grandfathers, uncles, and even neighbors were our protectors, safe keepers, and providers. They were to be emulated, learned from, looked up to. Men were a defense against anything that threatened us. Most men that I knew were good. They loved us, even if they never really said so. I loved the men in my life, because they were good, because the women in my home wouldn't allow them to behave any other way.

Where all men good, and by default, were all boys nice guys? Of course not, and I found that out the hard way.

"If you can learn from hard knocks, you can also learn from soft touches."
-Carolyn Kenmore

I was taught from birth, that women were always looking out for my best interest. My mother, grandmother, great grandmother, aunts and yes even my teachers were all there to help me. I didn't always agree with them, but I never for a moment doubted their veracity. Women were the soft ones, the good smelling, caring and tender people in our lives. Why would they want to hurt me, I loved them and they all loved me.

Were all women, and by default all little girls, always good?  Well, as I grew up, I began to discover that girls much like boys, are not always nice. So what happened to make things change?  That came later.

"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: 'It's a girl.'"
-Shirley Chisholm

Although women were smaller, and mostly weaker in a physical sense, they were not pushovers. Our mothers, and all adult women in our family were the benevolent dictators over everything within the home and family, and that included the men and boys. I didn't have any sisters, but my friends did and they became wiser, a lot sooner in the ways of the world where females were concerned than I did. What I didn't grasp until much later was that not all females were like my mother, and that mothers, acted like females to other people, but never us.

"We create an environment where it is alright to hate, to steal, to cheat, and to lie if we dress it up with symbols of respectability, dignity and love."
-Whitney Moore, Jr.

Can and do men and boys take advantage of smaller and weaker people? Yes, of course. Does that include women? Absolutely!  Does that include sex?  Without a doubt.

Ergo, all men always take advantage of everyone, especially women, in every case, without question, were sex is concerned!

That is absolutely absurd, and would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. However, in most states in The United States of America, in the case of an accusation of sexual assault, a man is considered guilty, and is treated as such, until and if he can prove otherwise. However, he must never accuse the accuser of any motive other than of that misinterpretation of his disgusting intentions.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Not a chance. Presumed innocence? Not in the current court of public opinion, and not in too many criminal courts of law either. A man is not allowed to proffer any questions or produce evidence of a pattern of behavior that casts any doubt on the accuser.

Thus, a man must present a defense that casts him as unethical, uncaring, and a vicious beast who perpetuates the accusation, promotes the stereotype, and confirms in public the appearance of guilt, beyond a shadow of doubt.

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
-Albert Einstein

Does it happen, that men, evil men, not only can and in some cases, do rape and brutalize women? You bet they do and when proven, the law should treat them in the strongest punishments allowable by law. A woman should be given an unencumbered opportunity to bring to justice anyone, that takes advantage of them and their bodies. They should be allowed to bring into court any pertinent evidence that casts the perpetrator in as damaging a light as the law allows.

It is true that filthy crimes of this nature are seldom committed in public where witnesses can collaborate an accusation.  However, this is true of most serious crimes, and that unfortunate fact, does not change the burden of proof.

A man, or a woman for that matter, presumably enters court innocent until proven otherwise. In such cases the accuser can bring into court any past behavior or a propensity to commit such a crime. Thus is the character of our court system, and the reason we have juries of our peers, to weigh the facts, and dispense the entitled punishment, or exonerate. Nothing should interfere with the process that we have in place.

This is not a unique position that I propose.. It was the law of the land...



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: accused; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,....  nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".
-U.S. Constitution: Amendment V

1 posted on 10/15/2003 10:05:11 PM PDT by carlo3b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Bob J; christie; stanz; jellybean; Angelique; Howie; TwoStep; piasa; Exit148; ...
Here is your chance to GET ON or GET OFF this and other Carlo3B, all important..(LOVE AMERICA, This is Your Country), (I'll be Damned), (Bwhahhahahh), (The Hell you say), (Aweeeeeee), (snif) ... PING LISTS.
If you wish to remain* on it, just sit back and enjoy our wonderful exchange of ideas and you will be alerted whenever we start posting, Historic, Patriotic, Family, and Diet, and a wholesome exchange of recipes and other valuable info re: various food management threads.

*If you have been flagged to this thread on this post, you are already on our temporary ping list, other pings don't count... :(

To be removed** or added to the list, simply respond to this post publicly, on this thread, or Freepmail me with your preference.
 

2 posted on 10/15/2003 10:09:52 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
-U.S. Constitution: Amendment VI

3 posted on 10/15/2003 10:10:36 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
-U.S. Constitution: Amendment XIII

4 posted on 10/15/2003 10:11:05 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Excellent, Carlo!

Add me to your ping list, please?!
5 posted on 10/15/2003 10:16:25 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (You may forget the one with whom you have laughed, but never the one with whom you have wept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
 
"We are the people our parents warned us about."
                                             -Jimmy Buffett
6 posted on 10/15/2003 10:16:51 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
Indeed I will, Thank you..
7 posted on 10/15/2003 10:18:07 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Awww Carlo this is gonna take some deep thought on my part and all I ever really wanted was a low fat deep dish apple cobbler recipe...........:o)

Marked for read later !......Stay Safe !

8 posted on 10/15/2003 10:18:44 PM PDT by Squantos ("Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
This has less Carbs.. LOL
9 posted on 10/15/2003 10:20:57 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Agree...........Stay Safe !
10 posted on 10/15/2003 10:25:16 PM PDT by Squantos ("Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
 

"A thief believes everybody steals."
-E.W. Howe

11 posted on 10/15/2003 10:26:13 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
"We can try to avoid making choices by doing nothing, but even that is a decision."
       -Gary Collins

12 posted on 10/15/2003 10:26:55 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b; Squantos
Bestiality: a perverted sex act between a human and a Democrat
13 posted on 10/15/2003 10:41:05 PM PDT by razorback-bert (Confession may be good for my soul, but it sure plays hell with my reputation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
Bestiality: a perverted sex act between a human and a Democrat

And verse visa

14 posted on 10/15/2003 10:45:10 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Thanks for the ping carlo. Good to think about this.
15 posted on 10/15/2003 11:05:43 PM PDT by Soaring Feather (Poets' Rock the Boat!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bentfeather
Thank you... Food for thought is as healthy as the body. Both require nourishment to flourish.
16 posted on 10/15/2003 11:22:49 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
I like that one, a favorite in our house is:

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
'Free Will' by Rush.
17 posted on 10/16/2003 3:50:27 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
"Bestiality: a perverted sex act between a human and a Democrat"


...I like Mary Matlin and I hate to think that about her...Maybe she and Carville don't really "do it"
18 posted on 10/16/2003 4:02:13 AM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses (of men) exhibit their tyranny."

A sad truth and one not generally recognized or acknowledged by either Democrats or Republicans..

19 posted on 10/16/2003 4:05:13 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
There are no facts, only interpretations."

Nietzsche was/is wrong.

20 posted on 10/16/2003 4:06:21 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
If you are alluding to Kobe Bryant......I see a future Judge Ito in this case. Afraid from the beginning to prosecute a celebrity lest it hurt the image of their resort.

Wouldn't be the first time Colorado was in the news for all the wrong reasons.

Jon Benet

Colombine

Kobe Bryant

21 posted on 10/16/2003 4:51:39 AM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
There are no facts, only interpretations."

Nietzsche was/is wrong.


He's a lot more right than you think. You can posit that a certain relationship or characteristic exists on its own apart from anyone's perception and call it a "fact." You can further posit that if it is perceived by different people with similar abilities under similar circumstances they'll all come up with a similar description and call that similar description a "fact." However, as soon as someone has taken his percept and compared and contrasted it with his previous experiences in the context of his intellectual abilities and formulated a description of what he experienced, he has produced an interpretation of his percept. If there are enough similar descriptions under similar circumstances, people say that a "fact" has been established. This, of course, may or may not be true, but whatever the case, the consistency lies in their interpretation of what they believe they experienced.
22 posted on 10/16/2003 4:59:11 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
If you are alluding to Kobe Bryant......I see a future Judge Ito in this case. Afraid from the beginning to prosecute a celebrity lest it hurt the image of their resort.

I really hope your wrong, and hope springs eternal, but I fear we are experiencing a sequel in the making.. ugh!

23 posted on 10/16/2003 5:46:15 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
There would appear to be no legal precedence in a rape case for the defendant to bring up the sexual past of the victim. Yet the Judge allowed this irrelevant information to be introduced in open court.

Even if the girl had intercourse with one hundred men in the previous one hundred hours it would not negate her right to refuse intercourse with ANYONE.

24 posted on 10/16/2003 5:54:44 AM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
 

"Life is a system of half-truths and lies, of opportunistic, convenient evasion."
                             -Langston Hughes
25 posted on 10/16/2003 5:55:47 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Even if the girl had intercourse with one hundred men in the previous one hundred hours it would not negate her right to refuse intercourse with ANYONE.

That is a fact indeed, but having said that isn't it also true that she could be celibate and still lie for whatever reason she has in her heart.

My point is there may exist motives and a proclivity for lying, that are also possible, and in the nature of a thorough defense the accused must not be muzzled by political expediency.

It is inherent in the fabric of common law that a defendant in entitled to a vigorous cross examination, no matter the accusation. However in this age of political correctness, the inference of sexual misdeed, scuttles a defendant's right to search out any motive or pattern of behavior that contribute to finding the truth.
 

26 posted on 10/16/2003 6:21:13 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
"Truth is what you make it." -Craig Livingstone, Clinton Security Chief
27 posted on 10/16/2003 6:26:15 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
When the media picks the guilty LONG before a trial begins, then what chance does the innocent have?
28 posted on 10/16/2003 6:30:40 AM PDT by Budge (God Bless FReepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OESY
"Truth is what you make it." -Craig Livingstone, Clinton Security Chief

Great catch.. It's funny that I still cringe when I see truth and Clinton used in the same sentence. Now add the word Security, and I start looking over my shoulder!

29 posted on 10/16/2003 6:32:31 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Budge
When the media picks the guilty LONG before a trial begins, then what chance does the innocent have?
 
None whatsoever, and even if found not guilty, the stain of the accusation remains on the new and true victim, the exonerated!
The accuser walks away, but the accused lives to fight the perception left by the false accusation!

“Gossip, (and slander)  is like mud thrown against a clean wall; it may not stick, but it leaves a mark.”

30 posted on 10/16/2003 6:44:01 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
"Life is a system of half-truths and lies, of opportunistic, convenient evasion." -Langston Hughes

I prefer the statement by Nietzsche since it was pretty much an academic description of the necessary relationship of interpretations to the concept of a "fact." It made no judgement at all about the motives behind those interpretations. On the other hand, Langston seems to be echoing someone from about 1970 years ago who said that people were liars and murderers and that it sprang from the evil in their own hearts but who still wasn't the complete cynic (or Calvinist) that Hughes appears to be in the above quote since he also told people that they, being evil, yet knew how to give good gifts to their children.
31 posted on 10/16/2003 9:17:28 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend; Howlin
Even if the girl had intercourse with one hundred men in the previous one hundred hours it would not negate her right to refuse intercourse with ANYONE

That is certainly true, but misleading.

Her RIGHT to refuse intercourse with Mr. Bryant is undisputed.

The state, however, must prove that she DID refuse, not that she had the right to refuse.

And her propensity to consent to intercourse with strangers (if proven) is a material fact which bears on the state's ability to prove, in this instance, that she refused.

32 posted on 10/16/2003 9:27:22 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
So you know that the people she had intercourse with were 'strangers'. Wow, you must be psychic!
33 posted on 10/16/2003 9:29:39 AM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Even if the girl had intercourse with one hundred men in the previous one hundred hours it would not negate her right to refuse intercourse with ANYONE.

But it would certainly cause me to doubt her claim that any vaginal swelling,bruising or redness was caused by the one fellow she refused.

I would also be curious about why she said yes to 100 Joe Averages, but said no to the one celebrity with millions of dollars.

34 posted on 10/16/2003 9:37:05 AM PDT by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
And her propensity to consent to intercourse with strangers (if proven) is a material fact

Did you read my post?

I don't know anything about this case. The complainant, for all I know, is a nun.

What I do know is that if a complainant alleges nonconsensual intercourse such that the state charges a defendant with a felony, the state must prove the charge-must prove that she did not consent.

In this regard, her testimony is important but not conclusive-otherwise, why have a trial?

What facts would you suggest the defense be able to use to create reasonable doubt of nonconsent?

Your suggestion, of having intercourse with a hundred men in a hundred hours, would certainly be part of a reasonable doubt defense.

Do you disagree?

35 posted on 10/16/2003 9:39:42 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Don't agree that having intercourse with a thousand men is relevant. In a trial it would NOT be allowed....but then this is Colorado.....home of The Ramsey's.....
36 posted on 10/16/2003 9:43:05 AM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Actually, Colorado has one of the strictest Rape Shield Laws in the country; in fact, some consider them draconian, and I am one of them.

Their law does allow for exception to the rules for past sexual history, and evidently the judge felt this fell into that exception.
37 posted on 10/16/2003 9:48:14 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Actually her activities within a short period of time, before her examination is relevant if those actions COULD have caused her internal irritations. The state alleges that the redness is material evidence in the accusation that the accused Kobe was the only one to have been capable of producing the injury.

He, the defendant, is allowed to produce any relevant information to contradict her allegation. In this case 100 or 1 other is prima fascia evidence that there is/was someone else that could have contributed, and thus casts doubt! Even in Colorado.

38 posted on 10/16/2003 10:21:56 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Thank you so much for the heads up to your great essay - much food for thought! It seems very difficult to avoid forming an opinion before hearing the evidence in such cases - they have been brutal to both sides over the years.
39 posted on 10/16/2003 10:34:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
I was taught at a very early age to take care of myself. One of the best methods of self defense is to not put yourself in a situation that endangers yourself. Don't hike in the forest alone or at least without letting someone know where you are going. Don't go down dark alleys at night. Don't get drunk and lose control of yourself. And don't be alone with men you don't know and don't know if you can trust.

If you play with matches, who is to blame, the match or the one who lit the match. You can flame me all you want, but it's about time for both men and women to take some responsibility. Rape is horrible. That goes without saying. But the concept that all you have to do is say NO at the last moment and all is well is insane. That's like standing in front of a freight train, whispering "Stop." Just don't stand in front of a freight train.

I have worked in a hotel. It's against all regulations to enter a room where you don't have business, and if you are working in room service, maintenance, housekeeping, or a bellhop, you never close the door of a room while in the room. This is not only to protect the patron and the employee, but to protect against false claims of rape.

Men should treat women as ladies, but women need to behave as ladies.

There is a very heavy price to pay for adultery. Broken families and ruined lived, often leaving a path of destruction. Having intercourse with someone you don't know puts you at risk for diseases, fatal attractions, and claims of rape. It's high risk behavior. Not to mention pregnancy with someone you don't want to spend the rest of your life with.

The rules have behavior have changed and there are too many mixed messages. I don't envy men who have to figure it all out and then end up in the wrong.

40 posted on 10/16/2003 10:42:27 AM PDT by christie (http://www.clintonlegacycookbook.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
All I think anyone wants is a far trial.. no leg up, no assumptions, generalizations, or any predetermined bias. We have been sliding down a slippery slope for far too long. Men are not always wrong, just as women haven't been abused far too often.

I don't know if Kobe, a rich dumb jock, did it because I haven't a clue, but this nonsense that we can't cast dispersions on his accuser because women who claim victim hood in sex aren't to be doubted. That is as criminal as it is absurd.

41 posted on 10/16/2003 10:45:25 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: christie
 You can flame me all you want, but it's about time for both men and women to take some responsibility.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY???
GASP!
HOW DARE YOU?


42 posted on 10/16/2003 10:52:34 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Is it not a "fact" that Nietzche loved to outrage? Is it also not a "fact" that if someone blows my head off, I am then dead?
43 posted on 10/16/2003 10:53:16 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
I especially want to be pinged on the diet stuff - not that I have a fat butt or anything.
44 posted on 10/16/2003 10:54:18 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
not that I have a fat butt or anything.

Who said that? I didn't say that... butt .. LOLOLOLOL You are on my list of women to watch!..I'll ping ya some time. *<]:)

45 posted on 10/16/2003 10:57:44 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
I'm one of those who believes the jury ought to have access to whatever they wish to know. The fact that judges via motions in limini (sp?) and legislators by act can limit evidence is troubling to me --- whether a criminal or civil trial. Even in a simple business law case, a judge can utterly destroy either side by his pre-trial rulings.
46 posted on 10/16/2003 11:00:26 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
whether a criminal or civil trial. Even in a simple business law case, a judge can utterly destroy either side by his pre-trial rulings.

Therein is the problem, we have wandered astray far way from the actual law and have now found ourselves deciding what was the intent, or the hidden meanings behind the laws.. BS. It depends too much on self-imposed filters, and strangled interpretations.

47 posted on 10/16/2003 11:07:53 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Colorado law demands that permission be granted by the judge before the claims are made public. Kobe's attorney failed to do that and just went ahead with her outrageous charges.
48 posted on 10/16/2003 11:14:39 AM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: christie
Yup, she asked for it. Went into the room with a man......got what she deserved. How dare she.......and those provocative yellow panties....worse than Monica's thong.
49 posted on 10/16/2003 11:15:59 AM PDT by OldFriend (DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Is it not a "fact" that Nietzche loved to outrage? Is it also not a "fact" that if someone blows my head off, I am then dead?

So it would appear. The point of "there are no facts, only interpretations" is that too many people too blithely believe that their characterization of their own percepts is the same thing as an independently existing reality. They're not. They may be close; they may be close most of the time; they may be sufficiently close most of the time, but they're not the same. Something like this can be seen in a poster on a Cubs game thread who said, "Baseball is boring" as though the predicate were an intrinsic property of the subject rather than an unwitting description of his own reaction to the subject.
He's a lot more right than you think. You can posit that a certain relationship or characteristic exists on its own apart from anyone's perception and call it a "fact." You can further posit that if it is perceived by different people with similar abilities under similar circumstances they'll all come up with a similar description and call that similar description a "fact." However, as soon as someone has taken his percept and compared and contrasted it with his previous experiences in the context of his intellectual abilities and formulated a description of what he experienced, he has produced an interpretation of his percept. If there are enough similar descriptions under similar circumstances, people say that a "fact" has been established. This, of course, may or may not be true, but whatever the case, the consistency lies in their interpretation of what they believe they experienced.

50 posted on 10/16/2003 11:17:00 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson