Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Tanoomba_sl said:

Because it's not enforced by the book.

Click to expand...

Sure, but how do we do that? Maybe require judges to read a fixed definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Require juries to take a short hour-long course on reasonable doubt and eyewitness testimony? I don't know.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Therefore I take issue when people (not just Cad) attack rape law in particular on the basis of flaws in the legal system in general. Sometimes people are a little too quick to interpret flaws in the system as being evidence that one group of people is being given the upper hand over another, such as when Lithose posted what he was sure was an example of gender bias but ended up simply being prosecutor error (selecting the wrong charge).

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? YOU posted that trial, and then I posted it was an appeal, and the main contention was trial procedure;notthe elements which you were talking about in the post. So I was the one who illustrated the prosecutor error being the main cause while YOU were the one selecting the case as proof of your theory.

Here is the original post. (Highlights mine)

Tanoomba_sl said:

People v. Ing
65 Cal. 2d 603

Girl says yes: Check
Didn't count for legal consent: Check
No minors or retards: Check


Yes, I suppose your criteria should have been more specific.

Edit: By the way, dude, you're being completely ridiculous. I don't have to find an example of someone breaking a law to prove that something is illegal. All I have to do is find legal documentation clearly stating that said action is illegal,and I did. Get over it, already.

Click to expand...

Then I illustrated that it's an appeal, and the main point was trial procedure, not the elements within the case.

Lithose_sl said:

That's an appeal; the decision was based upon him giving testimony to incriminate himself.Do you have the original case? The one where the question of rape was the actual relevant subject? I'm asking because the opinion of theJudges here doesn't say anything about the rape itself. So I'm not sure, if in the primary trial, whether or not things like him being a medical professional; and therefor in a position of authority, had anything to do with the ruling. I'd really like to read the original case (Not trying to do a gotcha, just can't find it.)

Click to expand...

I then used this to show that the original circumstances of the trial might have had a lot more than intoxication as a factor behind inability to make choices. There was also a Doctor/Patient relationship (Which has special rules); and he violated them. I told you that by not having the original case, we don't know what was the deciding factor (And most likely it was a confluence of things). I have no idea what you're talking about? There was a string of posts after that, looking at cases, where we disagreed on the interpretation of a reading (Below)--but I'm pretty sure I didn't link something as you describe.

(Interpretation disagreement. Note: This was another case YOU brought up as evidence of intoxication automatically discounting reasonable judgement.)


I think you literally just reversed what actually happened. Can you illustrate what you're talking about?

No, but what he can do is claim that you just don't get it man.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Sometimes people are a little too quick to interpret flaws in the system as being evidence that one group of people is being given the upper hand over another, such as when Lithose posted what he was sure was an example of gender bias but ended up simply being prosecutor error (selecting the wrong charge).

Click to expand...

I think I found it.

Here.

Lithose_sl said:

Just linking some privilege here (For those who don't believe the court system is INCREDIBLY biased.)--and because we were talking about Judges possibly overturning Jury decisions (Which no, did not happen here).

Vermont woman acquitted in police station knife case | WPTZ Home - WPTZ Home

In the video, woman sneaks up behind a cop, and puts a knife to his throat and cuts near his jugular (She actually did slice him, keep that in mind). She attempts to say she was just going to "threaten him" with the knife (Take him hostage). Jury acquits her not ONLY of the second degree attempted murder charge, but ALSO of assault. (Forget the fact, that no matter what, even if you believe she did NOT intend to kill him--it's still assault. The Jury STILL let her off.) The defense attorney attempts to explain it as she had the knife for several seconds by his throat and didn't do MORE damage, so that's evidence she wasn't "serious". (Again though, she still MEANT to hold a knife to him, and then cut him with it--so even given that defense it's still assault.)

Can anyone explain this? Did I miss something when reading about this case? I was going to do a rant about the staggering gender bias in the justice system, but I'm actually dumb struck, I almost HAVE to believe there is some kind of magic exculpatory evidence that just wasn't reported.

Click to expand...

LOL, are you fucking kidding me Tan? You argued this.

Tanoomba_sl said:

From what I understand, the jury decided she had no intention of killing or seriously injuring him. That intent is required for either an attempted murder or anaggravatedassault charge. While what she did definitely counts as assault, that wasn't what she was being charged with so they couldn't find her guilty of that.

"She certainly assaulted the officer, there was no question about that, but that wasn't the charge," said Soucy.

"At no point did she actually try to stab him or to cut him. She certainly put the knife in front of his face," said Soucy.


No argument here that the legal system is fucked, though.

Click to expand...

I didn't post back because if how ridiculous this statement was. If you couldn't see the absolutely RIDICULOUS bias here; then I wasn't going to waste time explaining it to you. The woman cut a man's THROAT; do you understand that? If it were a man who did that, the technicality of his "intent" wouldn't even have come up. The jury here went out of their way to believe this technical assertion because they were being biased toward gender. This is a real phenomenon in court proceedings, and it's why males often receive far harsher severity in sentencing, and far more punitive plea agreements,as females for the same crime(That's an actual statistical fact--higher than the rates of disparity between the race) The fact that you DO NOT see the Gender bias there pretty much made me give up on the thread, because you are so willfully obtuse, and blind towards it, that you don't see how it's systemic. I hate to tell you this, Tan, but Judges and Juries find a lot of "technical" reasons to let white people off than they do with blacks--that doesn't make it "okay"; not by a long shot. This is the SAME issue, the only thing you're doing is replacing race with gender.

Answer me honestly, Tan. If there was a video of a man sneaking up behind someone and cutting their throat--do you think they'd be found NOT guilty? Do youREALLY? Do you really even think a jury would take intent into consideration for someone who was in jail for theft, and cut a COPS throat? (I say again, she was already in jail for using stolen credit cards and had a history of substance abuse....Think of a man in that situation cutting a cops throat. Do you think the jury would care what his "intent" was? Or do you think they'd see someone as a threat to society and toss him away?)

Edit: And just to illustrate that this was not really a "legal" matter; this is was the judge had to say pre-trial.In the end of the nearly four-hour hearing, the judge ruled the weight of the evidence in the video against Berube was great. She is being held without bail. "The evidence from him would be pretty compelling that the defendant was intent on killing him by using a knife in a vital area of his body, that being the neck," Vt. Superior Court Judge Theresa DiMauro said.(Juries though, can make any choice, even nullification of the law. I'm not sure why you don't believe they are capable of bias even in the face of making a choice that runs contrary to evidence/legal standing--it happens ALL the time, because "feels".)

iAnus_sl said:

No, but what he can do is claim that you just don't get it man.

Click to expand...

No, I remembered what he was talking about, finally. It took me a moment because it's so god damn outrageous that it wasn't apparent to me he could be serious. I literally didn't argue with him afterwords because of how preposterous his position was in the face of absolutely blatant bias. For him to use the fact that a woman can cut a man's fucking throat and NOT get attempted murder as an example that Gender bias does NOT exist should be the perfect example that he's been trolling (And it's why I pretty much just read the thread since then for laughs.)

Tanoomba_sl said:

I don't know what would have happened if it was a man on trial instead of a woman, I think it's pointless to speculate since we can't know anyway.

Click to expand...

Why do you think he is biased? Is it because he thinks that juries are likely to look for technicalities to give women lesser sentences?
He links to this:Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
Do you disagree with this or think it is wrong?

I mean, surely you agree that biases can happen. Do you agree that juries often look for reasons to let whites off on technicalities, things they don't do for black defendants? Studies certainly support this.


Now granted, maybe sexism is also my kryptonite, but I find it very hard to believe that a male defendant would ahve been given the benefit of the doubt in that case, even less so if he was black.

I remember when I was in sixth grade we had two off duty cops come to a civics class. One comes in and gives some boring short speech and leaves, the other comes in and starts talking about something interesting to kids, then hands out a short written quiz with questions like, "so what color tie was my partner wearing", tallies the results up on the board, his partner walks back in. We're obviously way off the mark even with a short multiple choice informal quiz... and they spent about thirty minutes talking about physical evidence.

They might have been sbi detectives. Probably were. Sounds like more schools should do that if you've got grown people thinking eye witness is "most reliable". Obviusly it's important, but if you can prove to a sixth grader in fifteen minutes that it isn't terribly reliable, maybe that's a good use of fifteen minutes.

Tanoomba_sl said:

She clearly, and I mean clearly, had no intention of killing the cop. She was stupid enough to think she could hold a knife to a cop's throat and break her husband out, but she wasn't there to kill the guy. If she wanted to kill the guy, she would have slashed his throat right off the bat. Instead, even once the scuffle started, she refrained from stabbing or slashing him, except inadvertently. Is it assault? Of fucking course it is, but she wasn't being charged with assault. She was being charged with aggravated assault and attempted murder, both of which require intent to kill or seriously harm. Your response was "She wasn't even found guilty of ASSAULT!" which would have been a very valid criticism if she had been able to have been found guilty of assault. I don't know what would have happened if it was a man on trial instead of a woman, I think it's pointless to speculate since we can't know anyway.

It also doesn't really matter what the judge said. He saw intent to kill where the jury saw none. Heck, isn't the whole reason we even have a jury to keep the power of making these decisions out of the hands of one guy?

You're a very intelligent man, Lithose, and I have much respect for you. But you have a kryptonite, and that kryptonite is gender issues. I thought it was a bit bizarre when you expressed an interest in MRA to Trollface a long time ago but I didn't think much of it. Since then, the only time I've ever seen you lose both your cool and your rationality is when gender issues were involved. Heck, look how heated up my off-the-cuff comment has gotten you! You didn't even know what I was talking about at first and you exploded into an angry rant that had nothing to do with what I said. The cool, collected and rational Lithose we all know and love would not do that.

Also, I'm not saying gender bias doesn't exist in the legal system. Heck, we've seen evidence that in rape cases involving alcohol, the jury is more likely to think it was the female victim's fault, that she's simply suffering from a case of "buyer's remorse". That's absolutely gender bias. And I don't doubt your statistics about men being charged more heavily than women for the same crime. But IF a man in this particular woman's position would have been found guilty (which we can't know), that would have been an injustice since that goes against the evidence. Basically, you're angry that the jury came to the conclusion they were supposed to because you assume a man would have been unfairly found guilty.

Like I said, we all have our biases, even the mighty Lithose. Don't let your emotions get the better of you and push you into making irrational assumptions, dude. You're better than that.

Click to expand...

First, not everyone that disagrees with you has a "kryptonite" about Gender issues, Tan. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps it's you who are the one blinded by "gender" issues? You're just attempting to label people so you can disregard the actual arguments at hand, it's a weak form of argument, really. Also, I didn't express an interest in MRAs. I said I've read some of the readings by a psychologist within the movement wereinteresting, and would like to read more, but the movement on the whole was silly and then Trollface told ME that the "MRA community" could use me"--but that was the extent of my "interest"; to note, I look at MRA's like I do Feminism-- it's a dumb movement in a modern western society. Just like everything that comes across my eyes though, I read it--just like I've read books on Feminism, because I enjoy both sides of the coin. For fuck sake I've even read Dworkin, the sea cow. Are you going to label me a Rad Fem now? Do you realize how dumb that sounds, not to mention positively Macarthian to attempt to label people based on their readings.

As for why I got "angry"--I'm not "angry" aboutthe gender issue, I amperturbedbecause I don't like you attributing stuff to me just to collect some points in this terrible discussion as if I'm some goal marker to validate your argument, youmisconstruedme leaving the thread because of how ridiculous your position was, with a "win" or an admittance from me about a point I NEVER conceded, and yes, THAT annoys me, Tan--do not think to speak for me, please. You twisting that into me having "gender issue" is just a very subtle ad hominem, trying to paint me as someone with gender "issues" to detract from the arguments I make by questioning my character/motivations. Really thought you were above that, sad really--but please, lets not pull any punches, why don't you just call me a woman hater and we can arrive at the end game, Mccarthooba.

As for "she had no intent to kill him". She took a folding knife, sneaked up behind him and thencut his throat. If your "defense" is that she didn't domoredamage, then maybe you don't understand a few things, like how difficult it actually is to kill someone (It'snotlike a video game, Tan. People survive knife attacks all the time. Watch how fasthisreaction is. Self defense should not be an argument for lack of guilt, that's why they call it ATTEMPTED murder.). Her freezing, or hesitating, is notproofof lack of intent, it couldeasilybe proof of disorientation, or lack of coordination- or a HOST of other reasons made in the heat of the moment that adequately explain her failing to carve his throat. The fact is, if you make a threat against someone with a deadly weapon, especially in a fatally compromising position and FAIL to carry out that threat, there are a host of reasons for that failure--but there is only one reason for your action...You were hoping to use thethreat of deadly forceto coerce a reaction from your victim.

Read thatcarefully. Hoping to use the threat ofdeadlyforce to coerce a reaction from your victim. Once you make that threat, Tan; you have an intent to harm, because your rational choice must include apossible failure scenario(Where the victim refuses) and it's then implied that deadly forcewillbe used (Especially in this case where escape is not possible). Now combine that with actual wounds inflicted upon resistance by the officer? And you have a pretty clear illustration of intent by PHYSICAL evidence (Not just supposition/emotional testimony by the perpetrator)..AnyREASONABLEperson would make this assumption, and remember, that's what the law is based upon--the reasonable assessment of a peer (And those assesments are left a little vague to allow for circumstance; but given the physical evidence here, I saw no mitigating circumstances). So no, I'm not angry that men are "unfairly" convicted, according to the law, I believe the conviction of a man would be just and accurate. I believe, in this case, the woman was unfairlyexonerated(And again, you claiming that it was "right", shows a clear lack of understanding of the reasonable test in the justice system--the law allows for circumstance in the same crime for a reason, it's the juries that carry the bias). The bias here stems from the different levels of scrutiny we asses between the genders--The assessment for a man, as shown (Through statistical analysis), is far more strict, and holds the man up to a far higher scrutiny than that of women--again, that's juststatistical fact. (And once more, I believe the scrutiny men get to be the just/honest one; I have no problems with a man being sentenced for that crime.)

You want to talk about "male privilege" based on statistics? Then you take the good with the bad, because statics bear the conclusion here that most likely a male in this position would be treatedDRASTICALLYdifferently than a female. And that's the problem, Tan. Had we not been in a thread where you were LITERALLY arguing that statistical differences provide examples of bias; I might not have reacted in such an annoyed manner when you tried to attribute my actions to your little crusadebutyou are; and if it's one thing that quickly gets to me, it's hypocrisy (Especially when actions I have taken are used to build the foundation of that hypocrisy through attribution--you'll get a response from me very quickly.).

f you want to be delusional about these issues, and troll this thread? Fine. But understand the only reason I'm not dog piling on you is because even Hodj's Kentucky argument had more solid grounds than most of yours thus far. And I tend to avoid long arguments with people who have an absolutely indefensible position. (I don't tend to learn much otherwise.) And the only reason I came back, pretty annoyed, is because the astounding length of your illogical reach to attempt to twist my position in a post.

Edit: Just toexpoundon this. This officers neck was cut; the total time between the placement of the knife and the officers reaction was LESS than 3 seconds. Then the officer was able to jam his elbow up and prevent any application of force. So within 2-3 seconds she was able to cut him, and then was prevented from doing further damage. Your argument, Tan, is that because she didn't viciously open up his throat in those three seconds' that it proves she had no intent to kill him. Completely disregarding the fact that she needed to approach slowly with the knife to get it into position without him reaction; so, at most, she might have had that very tiny window in which to press down, and slice his throat clean through. This isn't assassin's creed, Tan. You expect someone untrained, nervous and scared to make a perfect killing slice in a fraction of a second?

Do you even understand how flimsy a defense that is? You realize how low the threshold for intent is, right? You received a huge education on it in the Trayvon thread. This lack of damage is really only a defense for people who are willing to provide abiasjudgment (For whatever reason). It's an absolutely preposterous thought in any other setting. Again, look at the PHYSICAL evidence of intent, in a 2 second window she wounded him--during the struggle she didn't, but during the struggle the much larger cop, who has been trained in self defense, was able to lock her arm up. She did not let go of the knife until the cop forced her to. Given his wounds, how quickly she inflicted them, the premeditation of her actions (In sneaking and applying pressure) and the fact that the office was wounded next to a an artery that could have proved fatal with slightly more pressure? There is OVERWHELMING evidence of deadly intent. The entire rest of the argument relies on supposition, conjecture and emotional appeals (Which is where gender bias typically stems from).

Lets stick to facts here, okay Tan?

Oh god who summoned Lithose? He is the Bullet-tooth-Tony of logic smack downs.

Be afraid, Tanoomba. I would be.