Kobe's Accuser Picture.....supposedly

[SOB]

Well, unfortunately I'm not a trained psychotherapist so I can't help you any further.


SOB

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by SOB
Well, unfortunately I'm not a trained psychotherapist so I can't help you any further.


SOB

And as if by an amazing coincidence, you are not a lawyer either...yet you try to explain the law to someone who is.

Amusing...

Whats next? "Im no doctor, but this is my take on how to preform heart surgery"...?

[capt. apathy]

I may not be a lawyer either, but if you can't see -in this particular case-  if he didn't rape her she is not a victim, then I really doubt you'd be able to pratice law in this country.

again in this case the key is to prove if a crime happend or not, no crime no victim.

'no crime-no victim' is a fairly simple concept.  most U.S. pre-law students can get their mind around that one.

[Hortlund]

No crime = no victim is a no-brainer.

But what you guys are circling around is the "no guilty verdict=no crime"-question, which is a completely different thing. And what I have been trying to say is that the courts really dont deal with that part.

If you want, it is rather easy to come up with a situation with a crime but no guilty verdict, just think "Miranda rights" or whatever the hell you call that.

I have also been trying to say that the courts never rule over stuff beyond the scope of the trial in the narrowest sense of the matter. This due to the Res Judicata rules.

-edit to clarify,
and since the purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or not-guilt for the accused, the courts tend to focus on that issue and ignore the rest.

But assuming that the bad guy in this case gets off for some reason, and we get a "no guilty verdict"-situation, that does NOT mean that the court says that "it was consentual sex" it just means that the court for some reason found it impossible to find the perp guilty.

[capt. apathy]

ok, but it is also completely likely that it turns out she made a false acusation, in wich case there is no crime and no victim

or do you still contend that she is automaticly a victim since she said it hapened that way?

  if so then why even bother with a trial?  since they both agreed that he is the one who had sex with her that night, and the only question is was it consensual.  therefor if she is automaticly a victim he would have to be automaticly guilty, right?

[Sixpence]

Probable cause.

It allows the police to arrest you for anything that might have happened. I though I had Steve hooked but capt apathy cut the line.

The person from N.H. who is charged with killing his children is an example. There are no bodies and it is not positive the children are dead. But he had the children when he left, he didn't have them when he got to California. He bought a shovel on the trip out there, owns a gun, and the back seat of his van is missing. They add two and two and come up with him killing his children, and he is charged.

Probable cause.

[Holden McGroin]

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a(n) Holiday Inn Express last night, and it seems obvious to me that if she is telling the truth, she is the victim, and the crime was some sort of sexual assault.  

If he is telling the truth, then he is the victim, and the crime, committed by her, is one of false accusation.

That is why it is important to qualify one's statements about this case with 'alleged' to be perfectly accurate.

Right now, she is an alleged victim, and he is an alleged 'perp'.  The trial is the vehicle for the prosecution to prove the allegations true.  The defense tries to show that the prosection has not proven its case.

In this particular case, a crime has been committed... we just don't know which one and to whom.  That is something for the jury to decide.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Hortlund
And as if by an amazing coincidence, you are not a lawyer either...yet you try to explain the law to someone who is.

Amusing...

Whats next? "Im no doctor, but this is my take on how to preform heart surgery"...?

Well, last time I checked you weren't practicing law in the U.S.  Or did Sweden become the 51st state recently?  Also, it doesn't take a lawyer to know that he is considered innocent until proven guilty and that she isn't a victim just because she says she is.  You don't know he raped her & I don't know he raped her.  That doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but it makes the fact that you automatically assume she was and that you chastise people for not assuming she was look kinda stupid.


SOB

[capt. apathy]

I though I had Steve hooked but capt apathy cut the line.

   

sorry to screw up your fish'n.  nice troll job though, you had me completely convinced you where serious.

[Nash]

If that was fishin', it sure wasn't your everyday, typical fishing expedition. This boat took on too much water and Sixpence jumped clear to safety moments before going down with the ship.

Rest in peace, Steve.

[Dowding]

Is this still going on? Jesus.

I'll try and point a friend of mine in the direction of this thread - he's training to be a barrister in London - it will be interesting to see what he thinks.

[Nash]

Really.

All it would take to slay this behemoth is for one professional to step in here for 1 second and just lay down what is and what isn't going on.

Not that you'd guess it by looking at this thread, but this thing isn't subjective and doesn't depend on one's point of view or perspective or any of that. It's got a right and wrong answer.

It would sure be nice if someone with some cred (no offense Steve, but...) could check in here and stick the fork in it.

[Hortlund]

lol, why would I take offense? Bottom line is I know what I'm talking about while you are using some common sense approach to the question.

Anyway, whats next? Dowding posting something "in character" like Elfenwolf did? Dowding: "This is Dowdings friend, the barrister..."

[Creamo]

I don’t wish unemployment on anyone, considering the volatile career I’m associated with, but I just have to ask.

Hortland, did you not divulge some time ago that you changed jobs or something to that effect? And most importantly, why? Your now back to being a lawyer, or still a judge?

I only ask because as a “Judge” you are a one man jury of sorts, yet your opinions here border ridiculous, if not out right wrong in my opinion in several topics. A few here might agree on that assessment. That’s scary.

Plus, anyone that holds, or held that important position as a judge of ones peers, I always thought they would be social circles and intellect beyond finding enjoyment of discussion here on a flightsim bbs. Yet you seem to visit and post here in earnest. It don’t add up, sorry to note that.

And I’m not saying the AH bbs is regulated to tards, I’m sure there is quite financially successful people like Mietla that find time to post,  and many others seem quite intelligent, but your time spent here does nothing to diminish my skepticism.

Bottom line, I’d hate to face you in a legal setting. When you argue with SOB, and never win a valid argument, I just cringe. To think you have legal authority to punish people with your obviously skewed opinions made apparent on this board, does not sit well with me at least.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Creamo
I don’t wish unemployment on anyone, considering the volatile career I’m associated with, but I just have to ask.

Hortland, did you not divulge some time ago that you changed jobs or something to that effect? And most importantly, why? Your now back to being a lawyer, or still a judge?

I only ask because as a “Judge” you are a one man jury of sorts, yet your opinions here border ridiculous, if not out right wrong in my opinion in several topics. A few here might agree on that assessment. That’s scary.

Plus, anyone that holds, or held that important position as a judge of ones peers, I always thought they would be social circles and intellect beyond finding enjoyment of discussion here on a flightsim bbs. Yet you seem to visit and post here in earnest. It don’t add up, sorry to note that.

And I’m not saying the AH bbs is regulated to tards, I’m sure there is quite financially successful people like Mietla that find time to post,  and many others seem quite intelligent, but your time spent here does nothing to diminish my skepticism.

Bottom line, I’d hate to face you in a legal setting. When you argue with SOB, and never win a valid argument, I just cringe. To think you have legal authority to punish people with your obviously skewed opinions made apparent on this board, does not sit well with me at least.

Did you have a point to all this?