Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pfunk on July 22, 2003, 03:12:37 PM
-
Blonde on the left
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_95_1058904770.jpg)
-
all his millions lost over that face! .. shame
-
cute as hell girl, but it looks like she is 12 I wonder if he has a little white girl fetish? Denver papers report that she still has "visible injuries" from the event that took place 3 weeks ago
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1525789,00.html
-
curious, you say "kobe's accuser" not "kobe's victim"
-
She remains an accuser until he is convicted. He remains innocent until found guilty.
-
Originally posted by john9001
curious, you say "kobe's accuser" not "kobe's victim"
She's the accuser, Kobe is the accused. What is curious about that?
-
Originally posted by john9001
curious, you say "kobe's accuser" not "kobe's victim"
Let the court find him guilty then she will be a victim. Untill then accuser is accurate.
-
She's a shameless little hussy for even being in the same room with him.
-
Then it was ok for him to rape her?
(if he is fact did,)
she could be a 5$ potato and it wouldn't make him any better or make the crime less of a crime. (if he did it)
This is all for the courts to decide, but raped or not her life is ruined, the picture is evidence of that, some are always going to think she is a potato, look at your own post..
-
yeah, he's a shameless little hussy for being in the same room with her
-
A number of NBA players have said Bryant’s accuser, a college student and former high-school cheerleader,is well known as a basketball groupie . That’s not what people say in her hometown—though she did play a Conrad-crazy fan in a school production of “Bye Bye Birdie.” Acquaintances call her “a good girl from a good family” who wouldn’t bring a false accusation—though they also hint at a family estrangement and a recent “hard time.” A high-school classmate told NEWSWEEK the teen was a singer who’d tried out for “American Idol” last year: “She’s a very nice girl, and I don’t know anyone who had problems with her. But I don’t want to comment one way or another on this case, because I don’t know what happened.”
-
It all seems to me like a case of a horny guy who unwittingly ****ed a psychotic attention potato squeak who wants money and fame.
-
"""a horny guy who unwittingly ****ed a psychotic attention potato squeak """"
well , nice to see you haven't prejudged this case.
-
Originally posted by john9001
"""a horny guy who unwittingly ****ed a psychotic attention potato squeak """"
well , nice to see you haven't prejudged this case.
It is you who firmly believes she is a victim.
-
Originally posted by rc51
She's a shameless little hussy for even being in the same room with him.
BS I saw that she worked for the resort he was at and he ordered room service after hours (he was special ya understand) well folks SHE was the lucky staff member who brought the food to his special ass. So now just explaine to me how that makes her a shameless little hussy.:mad:
Oh and just how much money is she going to get by going to the cops and having him arrested. If she wanted the money that is sure a strange way to go about it:rolleyes:
-
She's a filthy little potato, and he's a dirty rapist slimeball. I hope they both get put in prison. And while we're at it, we should string up Bill Walton too.
SOB
-
curious, you say "kobe's accuser" not "kobe's victim"
so far she has made an accusation, that makes her an accuser.
maybe the courts will find that she is 'the victim', they could also find that she decided to cry rape after the fact which would make him her 'victim' . he is inocent until proven guilty after all.
-
Originally posted by rc51
She's a shameless little hussy for even being in the same room with him.
I hope you don't have a little sister that ever "allegedly" gets raped at work.
-
Originally posted by SOB
And while we're at it, we should string up Bill Walton too.
SOB
Damn straight, I hate that ****in guy!
-
Oh don't get me wrong I am NO fan of kobe whats his name.
I dont even like basketball dam freaks of nature i think..
His wife should boot his prettythang out on the street.
And as for me calling the girl a hussy i was being dry in humor.
Of course i see her as the VICTIM!!!
And in no way did she asked to be raped.
But this crap happends all to offend with our sport HERO'S cough
cough cough .
I trully hope that the SOB if guilty does not get away with it.
-
They showed that picture on CNN earlier today and said that the picture wasn't of the girl in question but rather of another girl from the same town.
Ack-Ack
-
now now innocent till proven guilty SOB(unless your name is oj). We will be able to laugh at his sexual offender status in about a year though. Everyday you will be able to keep tabs on him because of that heh.
-
I hope this case
DISAPPEARS FROM THE HEADLINES
as I am tired as hell of hearing about it...
Cripes, it's best to let the courts settle it and everyone needs to stop trying to exploit an opinion in the media....
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
They showed that picture on CNN earlier today and said that the picture wasn't of the girl in question but rather of another girl from the same town.
Ack-Ack
Actually the 1st pics of her on the internet were debunked by the one I posted earlier. Now it seems that the original pics are in fact her
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_95_1058964136.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_95_1058964218.jpg)
-
So won't the real blonde hussy please stand up, please stand up.
I know, I'm creative.
-
lance, all you need to do now is have DR. dre steal some beats from a real artist and you can be a rap star. ITS THAT EASY
-
Ya know the funny thing about this.I heard on CNN a reporter saying something along the lines of " The sports world was shocked to hear bla bla bla."
Shocked??Shocking behavior? If in fact he did it why would it be shocking? No, OJ Simpson was shocking.This is a story of a BB player overstepping the boundries.What makes it shocking?Like because hes a BB player hes above the normal human faults?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yawn.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Ya know the funny thing about this.I heard on CNN a reporter saying something along the lines of " The sports world was shocked to hear bla bla bla."
Shocked??Shocking behavior? If in fact he did it why would it be shocking? No, OJ Simpson was shocking.This is a story of a BB player overstepping the boundries.What makes it shocking?Like because hes a BB player hes above the normal human faults?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yawn.
What is also funny is that people make Kobe out to be this perfect person. Isn't he the one who cheated on his wife not even 7 months after giving birth to their first child?
-
An ICY hOt Stuntas with her?
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Ya know the funny thing about this.I heard on CNN a reporter saying something along the lines of " The sports world was shocked to hear bla bla bla."
Shocked??Shocking behavior? If in fact he did it why would it be shocking? No, OJ Simpson was shocking.This is a story of a BB player overstepping the boundries.What makes it shocking?Like because hes a BB player hes above the normal human faults?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yawn.
Its shocking because the persona we have been led to believe is Kobe' is one of the few squeeky clean basketball players.
Stories were circulated that he had trouble fitting in with the team because he refused to be the party guy. He is very well educated. Even though he came to the NBA out of High School, he speaks fluent Italian and I think Spanish.
This is shocking for those of us who have followed his career. It seems very un-Kobe-like. Maybe it's not. We shall see.
-
There is no such thing as squeeky clean, in fact people who go through all that trouble to put up a clean front or a religious front and the worst offenders and are using it to hide behind.
-
There is no such thing as squeeky clean, in fact people who go through all that trouble to put up a clean front or a religious front and the worst offenders and are using it to hide behind.
Yes, i´m still waiting for the day that DR. Phil will turn out to be an serial killer....
-
Dr. Phil is a boob.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
She remains an accuser until he is convicted. He remains innocent until found guilty.
Eh...no...
She IS a victim regardless of who the bad guy is, the question is whether he is a criminal or not.
-
And there seems to be lots of people here with charming attitudes towards rape victims.
Disgusting f*ckheads.
-
She IS a victim regardless of who the bad guy is, the question is whether he is a criminal or not.
I´m confused, are you saying that she still is an victim even if it is an false accusation?
-
"Let's not pre-judge" but "Let's make sure we call her the victim."
Those types are always like that. You could expect this from THEM.
MiniD
-
good attitude, Hortlund.
She is a victim and he's a rapist if her claims of sexual assault are true.
She's less than a two bit potato and he's just a handsomehunk adulterer if she willingly let him bone her and then threw out false accusations to garner her time in the spotlight and any money that comes from book/tv/movie deals after the fact.
Leaning towards one or the other before the verdict in the trial is nothing but showing your bias/prejudices.
-
She IS a victim regardless of who the bad guy is, the question is whether he is a criminal or not.
No. She is an alledged victim regardless of who the bad guy is. That is a BIG difference.
-
She's a slut. I did her.
-
Hortland... They had sex, that isn't in doubt. Whether or not it was consensual is the question. If it was consensual, then it wasn't rape, and there is no victim.
You seem to be under the impression that a rape occured... and whether it was Kobe or someone else, she is still a victim of rape.
Brrrrrzzzz. wrong.
What I said isn't really true: "If it was consensual, then it wasn't rape, and there is no victim."
In this case, there actually is a victim. Kobe.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
She's a slut. I did her.
I hear you did Kobe too, you slut
-
Just out of curiosity...how many rape victims have you met? I mean face to face?
-
Impossible to say.
I take it you concede the point.
-
No, I dont.
She is a victim. Period.
If a girl has been raped but the police and prosecuters fail to get a guilty verdict on the bastard who did it...does that mean that she wasnt raped?
No, it doesnt, it just means that no one can be punished for the crime.
What was the name of OJ's wife? I cant remember. Is she a murder victim or not?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Impossible to say.
= none
I am talking about a situation where you are face to face with a rape victim and she for some reason tells you about that rape.
-
Hortlund.
They had sex. She said it was rape. He said it was consensual.
What makes you so sure a rape took place? How can you say she was raped with such conviction?
You weren't really a judge were you?
As to your other question. Now that you've clarified it - there are two that I recall without a doubt. Probably more that I don't recall. And here again... so they've said. I don;t think I've met anyone who's been in court over it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hortlund.
They had sex. She said it was rape. He said it was consensual.
What makes you so sure a rape took place? How can you say she was raped with such conviction?
[/b]
Do you have any idea how common that is? To be perfectly honest I dont think I have met a single rapist who said "yeah, I did it, it was a rape." At the same time, they know that it is kinda easy to prove that they had sex...so what is left...the good 'ol "she wanted it" defense. Often combined with long elaborations from the defense counsel on what clothes she was wearing or how she was behaving before the rape. All that aimed at showing that even though she said no, and even though she says it was a rape...she wanted it...
You weren't really a judge were you?
[/b]FU
Before I quit my job I offered anyone who wanted it to have my phone and call me at work or check that number out. Since you didnt do it then...why do you doubt it now?
-
OMG listen to yourself.
You're saying there's no such thing as a false accusation.
Just accuse someone of rape, et voila! It's a rape.
You have no idea if Kobe raped her. That's a fact. You seem to think you know what happened in there. You don't.
-
Thank god I will never have to go to court in Sweden or have Hortlund as a judge. SHE IS NOT A VICTIM UNTIL PROVEN. Jesus man they had sex he admits to that, she says it was not consensual. She placed the charges on HIM so she has to have the evidence to back it up. How is that a Victim? It is her word against his that will be backed up by evidence on both sides. She is not a victim until she PROVES herself to be one. Jesus man how hard is that to comprehend?
-
Originally posted by Nash
OMG listen to yourself.
You're saying there's no such thing as a false accusation.
Just accuse someone of rape, et voila! It's a rape.
You have no idea if Kobe raped her. That's a fact. You seem to think you know what happened in there. You don't.
(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative4.jpg)
I wasnt there. But how often to girls have visible physical injuries three weeks after having consensual sex with someone?
-
if a woman is raped and they can't find the rapist she is still raped. as in the OJ analogy the victim there is still dead even if they never find the killer.
this is not at all the same thing. where in the oj case everyone agrees a crime was comited the question is who was involved. in this case everyone agrees who was involved the question is what happened. was there a crime? since he agrees he was there and had sex with her the only question is, who's telling the truth. if she is then, he is a rapist and she is a victim. if he's telling the truth he is a handsomehunk adulterer but not a rapist, and she is a lying squeak and not a victim.
-
If Kobe' is PRESUMED innocent, then she is not yet a victim. Especially in the context of this case.
ie. Concentual or not Concentual.
It's a legal thing steveie. Maybe you should hit the books.
-
Btw Hortlund.... Not that I care too much, but calling up a number which goes to some courthouse in Sweden where you may be a judge or the mail clerk wouldn't be proof of anything. Like I said - I don't care to investigate... but if you wanted to offer proof, a phone number wouldn't be any.
A PDF of some public court document along the lines of: "Jones vs Smith, the honorable Steve Hortlund presiding" or whatever... that would be something. A phone number? Nah...
I gott say... a 28 year old retired judge is something else... (meaning if you've been on the bench for a few years you were 25). Very impressive. :)
-
Originally posted by Pfunk
Thank god I will never have to go to court in Sweden or have Hortlund as a judge. SHE IS NOT A VICTIM UNTIL PROVEN. Jesus man they had sex he admits to that, she says it was not consensual. She placed the charges on HIM so she has to have the evidence to back it up. How is that a Victim? It is her word against his that will be backed up by evidence on both sides. She is not a victim until she PROVES herself to be one. Jesus man how hard is that to comprehend?
You are one seriously disturbed person.
Suppose a girl gets raped. She is found uncounciess in a park with physical injuries and sperm inside her. She says someone assaulted her and raped her. The rapist is never found. Does that mean that the girl wasnt raped?
I dunno how your sick mind works, but just because the guilty person cannot be found guilty in a court of law, that does not mean that there was no crime. You have to understand that difference.
-
You cannot be this dense. It's like you're TRYING. Remarkable. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Btw Hortlund.... Not that I care too much, but calling up a number which goes to some courthouse in Sweden where you may be a judge or the mail clerk wouldn't be proof of anything. Like I said - I don't care to investigate... but if you wanted to offer proof, a phone number wouldn't be any.
A PDF of some public court document along the lines of: "Jones vs Smith, the honorable Steve Hortlund presiding" or whatever... that would be something. A phone number? Nah...
I gott say... a 28 year old retired judge is something else... (meaning if you've been on the bench for a few years you were 25). Very impressive. :)
Finished law school in 99. Started working in the court in 01, worked there 01-03. I have been trying to explain before exactly what I was doing, and I havent found any translation to the US or english court systems that works.
Believe whatever the hell you want. Some day if I'm bothered enough I could scan the letter of recomendation I got from the court, or I could scan the proof of employment or whatever.
If I truly wanted to make up a career, I sure as hell would pick something more sexy than law though :) ...meet Steve the fighter pilot...or the weapons officer on a submarine or something...but Steve the junior judge? lol give me a break
-
Hortlund, please move the the U.S. immediately! My gosh, since you know that a person is a victim from so many miles away, you could save us millions in civil and criminal proceedings merely by pronouncing judgement... screw the costs of due process, Hortlund knows all!!!!!!!
I'm not saying Kobe is innocent. In fact, from a strictly statistical standpoint, since the DA felt there was enough evidence to file charges, Kobe is likely guilty. However, in this case, since the nature of the act itself is on trial and not the act itself(consent vs rape), technically there is no victim, just as there is no rapist, until a jury says so.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You cannot be this dense. It's like you're TRYING. Remarkable. :)
The rapists and the wife beaters always gets to me nash. If you truly want to talk about this then look me up on msn. I'll give you the adress if you want.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Suppose a girl gets raped. She is found uncounciess in a park with physical injuries and sperm inside her. She says someone assaulted her and raped her. The rapist is never found. Does that mean that the girl wasnt raped?
This is quite different than the Bryant case. He admits to having sex with her. The girl says she was a victim. Bryant says she was not.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This is quite different than the Bryant case. He admits to having sex with her. The girl says she was a victim. Bryant says she was not.
My example was just to show that there can be victims even if no one is ever found guitly of a crime.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
My example was just to show that there can be victims even if no one is ever found guitly of a crime.
No arguing that point... but if Bryant isn't found guilty, I can't see that she's a victim in this case.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Finished law school in 99. Started working in the court in 01, worked there 01-03. I have been trying to explain before exactly what I was doing, and I havent found any translation to the US or english court systems that works.
Well... Did you sit on a bench? In a robe? With a gavel? Did you have people come into your courtroom? Did you say things like "Over-ruled!"? Could you order the bailiff to beat on unrully folks? Did you hand down decisions? Did you sentence people to years in jail?
You know... Judge type stuff. Was this you?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You are one seriously disturbed person.
Suppose a girl gets raped. She is found uncounciess in a park with physical injuries and sperm inside her. She says someone assaulted her and raped her. The rapist is never found. Does that mean that the girl wasnt raped?
I dunno how your sick mind works, but just because the guilty person cannot be found guilty in a court of law, that does not mean that there was no crime. You have to understand that difference.
In that case yes she would be a victim. She did not know her attacker nor could they find who did it. However in the Bryant case she knew the attacker and she cannot be considered a victim unless she proves otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well... Did you sit on a bench? In a robe? With a gavel? Did you have people come into your courtroom? Did you say things like "Over-ruled!"? Could you order the bailiff to beat on unrully folks? Did you hand down decisions? Did you sentence people to years in jail?
You know... Judge type stuff. Was this you?
Well, we dont have robes or wigs in Sweden. We dont have that "objection" - "overruled"-thingy either. Nor do we have a jury, or a bailiff.
The first year, I got to do pretty much nothing but to prepare cases, prepare files, brief judges on legal stuff, write reports, be a part of the court in various trials (that is, sit behind the bench with the judge and the three "nämndemän" but without a vote in the verdict).
Then after a year, I "earned my spurs" or whatever. I got to handle all divorces, adoptions, bankruptcies. That is, if someone wanted a divorce, I was the one going over the case, and deciding if they should get a divorce or not, and I signed the documents...you know "the court finds that the marriage of mr X and mrs Y has ended...blah blah ...on behalf of the court...signed me". Same with adoptions..."the court grants mr and mrs X the right to adopt the child Y ...signed me" ..same with bankruptcies..."the court finds that the company X is insolvent and declares it to be under bankruptcy...signed me" etc etc I also did hundreds of smaller cases...if anyone was to be declared unable to care for themselves and put under a guardian..I signed those rulings...etc etc
I got to handle all cases up until the trial (stuff like rule on public defenders, making sure the lawsuits are correct, etc etc boring stuff). I got to hold my own trials in certain "lighter" cases (speeding, shoplifting, driving without permit, violation against EC law, etc etc) In these cases I was the judge. I sat in the judge seat, I had three "nämndemän" beside me, and another junior judge that was below me in rank or how to call it. I called all the shots, ordered people around...blah blah...you name it, I was the judge. I have never sentenced anyone to jail however. 99% of the cases I got were cases where the perp got a fine. In the "heavier" cases, I still did the same thing as in the first year (sit behind the bench without a vote).
-
Ah gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. That's judge-like enough for me. Blows my mind that Sweden makes people judges after only a couple of years out of law school. And especially when they show such disregard for the rules of logic! :) The pay must suck or something. :)
-
She is obviously of swedish ancestry.
I think this is what has Hortlund's panties in such a wad.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ah gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. That's judge-like enough for me. Blows my mind that Sweden makes people judges after only a couple of years out of law school. And especially when they show such disregard for the rules of logic! :) The pay must suck or something. :)
Well, to be prefectly honest I think I tend to be more outspoken on this here BB than IRL...imagine that huh
-
Just out of curiosity...how many rape victims have you met? I mean face to face?
My ex-girlfriend was a rape victim. What's your point? Or was there no point, just a simple "I've met a rape victim so you guys don't know what you are talking about."? Because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying the very same thing.
-
So that's why he's so bitter !!! All that work and he never got to fry someone, not even a jail term. Talk about disappointment :D
Just messing with you Hort :D
-
My example was just to show that there can be victims even if no one is ever found guitly of a crime.
this point has already been adressed in my previous post (and quit a few posts of others) but I'll go over it again.
yes, in some cases there can be victims even if the guilty party is never found.
not in this case, everyone agrees on who was there. everyone agrees that he had sex with her. the whole question in this case is - was she a willing participant who decided to call it rape after the fact, or was she raped. if she wasn't raped then there was no crime, if there was no crime there was no victim.
-
And if she was raped, but he is found not guilty due to some legal weirdness ala OJ? Then she wasnt raped? Is that what you are saying?
-
I wasnt there. But how often to girls have visible physical injuries three weeks after having consensual sex with someone?
Kinda hard to overlook that.If in fact HE was responsable for them.Rape is an easy wolf to cry and it wouldnt be the first time a girl had someone slap her around to make it look good.If its found he forced himself on her I say off with his balls and then slip them into the MAW's stew pot:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And if she was raped, but he is found not guilty due to some legal weirdness ala OJ? Then she wasnt raped? Is that what you are saying?
If she was raped and Kobe' is found innocent, then she may be a victim, but not Kobe's victim, however based on the press leaks from both sides in this case. The question seems to be whether or not there was a rape.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And if she was raped, but he is found not guilty due to some legal weirdness ala OJ? Then she wasnt raped? Is that what you are saying?
and if she did have consentual sex, then cried rape....... for what ever reason...... (fame, money.... it happens every day) ........ and Kobe is found guilty of rape........ is Kobe not the victim?
-
Fact is only two people know for sure what happened that day.
None of us were there, we don't know.
1) If the woman was forced to have sex against her free will, she was raped. She would be a rape victim even if Kobe was found not guilty.
2) If she had consentual sex with Kobe, then Kobe would be the victim as she would be falsely accusing Kobe of a crime he didn't do even if he isn't convicted. His reputation is forever marred.
In an idealistic world, the guilty are always convicted, the innocent are neverr found guilty.
We are far from that idealistic world.
If he actually did rape her, I hope he is punished to the full extent of the law (criminal/civil).
If he didn't I hope she gets punished to the full extent of the law (criminal/civil).
We can all offer our opinions of who we might think is guilty, but none of us here really know who is guilty. If anyone really is clairvoyant to know such things, I am sure the government could use your services. lol
-
Yes Hortlund, by legal definition: If he is found innocent, she was not raped.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes Hortlund, by legal definition: If he is found innocent, she was not raped.
Wrong
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes Hortlund, by legal definition: If he is found innocent, she was not raped.
So where OJ was found innocent, there was no murder?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So where OJ was found innocent, there was no murder?
WOW NICE USE OF LOGIC MR. SPROCKET SCIENTIST!
Please lord, enlighten some of these people!
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Wrong
Wrong
your turn.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Please lord, enlighten some of these people!
:mad:
Why, when you are doing so well.
-
Originally posted by Animal
WOW NICE USE OF LOGIC MR. SPROCKET SCIENTIST!
please, mine english not most best, what is a"sprocket scientist" ?
-
Sprocket scientist. Ha, makes sense.
If you parse it, you get a rocket scientist, only German.
"Now we calculate!"
-
In this case Kobe and the girl both had sex. The girl claims that rape took place. Kobe says it was consentual. It seems some of you think she was absolutely positively raped and if Kobe is found not guilty she just mixed him up with another guy.
The question is...did Kobe rape her or were they just a man and a woman in a room engaging in consentual intercourse, and she decided to accuse rape because she knew she could possibly get away with it with almost no loss if she didnt get away with it. It's not that hard to decipher really what this case is about.
-
ahem.... the victim is on the left.... :)
(http://www.photofeaturesint.com/2002teenchoiceawards/images/prevs/teen1566.jpg)
Don't know what Mr. Bryant was thinkin...
-
please, mine english not most best, what is a"sprocket scientist" ?
Well it says hes from Fla.Makes sence to me.:D
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
1.)In this case Kobe and the girl both had sex. The girl claims that rape took place. Kobe says it was consentual. It seems some of you think she was absolutely positively raped and if Kobe is found not guilty she just mixed him up with another guy.
2.) and she decided to accuse rape because she knew she could possibly get away with it with almost no loss if she didnt get away with it.
1.) OJ was found not guilty, but then found guilty in wrongful death.
2.) So you're saying she has nothing to lose?
-
Possibility 1.
Consentual sex, gold-digger sees monatary lawsuit settlement, accuses rape. Therefore the man is the victim.
Possibility 2.
Sexual attack, woman accuses rape. Therefore the woman is victim.
We do not know which possibility is the truth in this case, and discussion without facts is fruitless. Let the jury decide, and lets talk about baseball.
-
after the "incident" the girl did not want to report it because he was a rich and famous BB star, a security guard at the hotel advised her to call the police.
so it's really the guards fault , fire him.
-
I wasnt there. But how often to girls have visible physical injuries three weeks after having consensual sex with someone?
Maybe it was her first black man?
-
Sixpence, come on dude. In the OJ trial, there was no dispute that a murder was committed, only who did it... well at least in court.... most of us opined that he did it.
In kobe's case, there is not such a dispute. There is a dispute whether there is a crime at all.
Basically, you are saying that since the girl says she was raped, that it's fact. And since she is a victim and it is fact, Kobe is guilty and not entitled to a trial. I mean, she is a rape victim, and Kobe admitted having sex with her. By your logic, he has confessed and should get no trial.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Maybe it was her first black man?
Because all black men physically abuse women?
-
Because all black men physically abuse women?
Depends on how much "practice" the woman has had before...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Depends on how much "practice" the woman has had before...
Practice in what? Getting beat up?
-
Not even close, whats the nice word.... shagged....
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Practice in what? Getting beat up?
You didnt get it. He was making a joke about noodle size.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wrong
your turn.
See, the difference here is that you dont know what you're talking about, and therefore you try to reduce the level of argument to a level you can understand.
I suggest reading someting, and maybe listening to classical music to upgrade your IQ.
-
Originally posted by Animal
You didnt get it. He was making a joke about noodle size.
Oh, yes, all black men have huge noodlees...racial stereotyping can be both fun and allowed then?
Want to talk about the Bell curve?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh, yes, all black men have huge noodlees...racial stereotyping can be both fun and allowed then?
Want to talk about the Bell curve?
*sigh*
-
racial stereotyping can be both fun and allowed then?
Oh! you are pissed off because you get flamed when you post your racist crap?
-
Black men have big noodlees is not a form of racial stereotyping? Is that what you are saying now?
-
If someone told me i had an big noodle i would see it as an compliment.
-
Ah, so racial stereotyping is ok if you think you are giving someone a compliment?
-
No, racial stereotyping is ok if you make it in a form of an joke and if it at the same time is an compliment.
-
The Irish are a bunch of merry bastards, I never get tired of getting drunk with them!
OMG I JUST MADE ETHNIC AND POSSIBLY RACIAL STEREOTYPING. WHAT LEVEL OF PC HELL AM I HEADED TO :eek: :eek: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!11one
-
Originally posted by Maniac
No, racial stereotyping is ok if you make it in a form of an joke and if it at the same time is an compliment.
Ok, I'm gonna save this quote.
-
Animal...do you agree too that racial stereotyiping is ok if you do it as a joke and you think it is a compliment at the same time?
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
and she decided to accuse rape because she knew she could possibly get away with it with almost no loss if she didnt get away with it. It's not that hard to decipher really what this case is about.
You know precious little of rape victims my friend.
And this is how she has been treated before the trial:
The woman's name has been on the radio in at least 60 cities and posted on various Internet sites, complete with address, phone number and, in several cases, photographs of the wrong women. She has recieced numerous death threats from angry fans.
-
It is not wether it is OK.
I dont see it as wrong. Maybe not PC, but I dont care about that.
I make racially stereotypical jokes all the times about blacks, whites, jews, irish, italians, germans, etc. But there is a line between a funny racial stereotype, and flat out racism (hate).
Maniac did not cross that line. To me, it is just about offensive about making a joke about a loud American, or a charmingly gay Englishman, or a smart japanese, or the many chinese, or the mexicans in their bodegas, or the snobby french, what have you.
To you, it is only offensive because you are confrontational and you CHOOSE to perceive it as offensive just so you can have a hostile arguement with Maniac (who was only trying to lighten up this thread)
Hortlund, I think you need to take your own advice. Listen to some classical, open a bottle of wine or scotch, and just chill for a while.
With the attitude you are displaying, I dont see how you can be enjoying reading and talking about this. Maybe you enjoy flat out arguing with other people, I dont know. I hope you either dont get married, or find someone who loves it just as much as you do.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Basically, you are saying that since the girl says she was raped, that it's fact. And since she is a victim and it is fact, Kobe is guilty and not entitled to a trial. I mean, she is a rape victim, and Kobe admitted having sex with her. By your logic, he has confessed and should get no trial.
What i'm saying is the DA says there was a rape. So there was a rape until proven otherwise. I don't see where I say Kobe should confess and get no trial, nice try though.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You know precious little of rape victims my friend.
And this is how she has been treated before the trial:
The woman's name has been on the radio in at least 60 cities and posted on various Internet sites, complete with address, phone number and, in several cases, photographs of the wrong women. She has recieced numerous death threats from angry fans.
Her name and picture should not have been published. However she is not a rape victim. She is presently an alleged rape victim. It is entirely possible with what we know, which is scant, that the accusation is false and Kobe Bryant's version of the events is the truth.
Let the jury do its job.
-
The DA has determined that there was a rape. If Kobe is found innocent, was there no rape?
There was a rape, the jury does not decide if there was a rape or not. She is the alleged victim. There is no alleged rape.
-
Originally posted by Animal
you CHOOSE to perceive it as offensive just so you can have a hostile arguement with Maniac (who was only trying to lighten up this thread)
Yeah, I dont know why anyone would find that remark offensive...after all, he was only making fun of a rape victim in an attempt to lighten up the thread...
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The DA has determined that there was a rape. If Kobe is found innocent, was there no rape?
There was a rape, the jury does not decide if there was a rape or not. She is the alleged victim. There is no alleged rape.
if so why bother with a trial ?
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
In this case Kobe and the girl both had sex. The girl claims that rape took place. Kobe says it was consentual. It seems some of you think she was absolutely positively raped and if Kobe is found not guilty she just mixed him up with another guy.
The question is...did Kobe rape her or were they just a man and a woman in a room engaging in consentual intercourse, and she decided to accuse rape because she knew she could possibly get away with it with almost no loss if she didnt get away with it. It's not that hard to decipher really what this case is about.
I'm sorry lefty but saying she has nothing to lose shows you have little experience with our court system. I would guess what she has to go through will be the (possibly) second worse experience of her young life. I read somewhere that less then half of all rape cases are ever reported due to the stigma attached and the fear of the trial. If she was out for money she would have not gone to the police as now she can get nothing only the grief, look how she is portrayed here in this thread.
With about half of us calling her a slut and the guilty party, think how hard her life is now and for what (if she is lying), someone explain to me why she would claim rape and go through this for fun. Not to mention the lawsuit she will probably have hit her if he is acquitted. It is ridicules to think that she is doing this for kicks and giggles. When I was a medic I had training on rape recognition and counseling, here I learned that often woman blame themselves for the incident and keep quite about it until someone intervenes and points out that it is a crime and needs to be looked into by authorities. I also learned that over 80% of all rapes start out as someone other then a stranger, someone known and trusted by the victim and this leaves the victim in a state of shock.
Bottom line is 99.99 percent of the time someone does not file a false report of rape, go through the pain, trial and ridicule just for grins. In today’s world with spy cams everywhere the guy may even have the whole thing on tape for his defense, if I were famous I would consider it as a form of protection.
I just don't think it is very likely she made this up, I think she got in over her head, was star struck and flirted way to much. When she tried to stop it he was pissed and did not take no for and answer. Unfortunately he probably did not think it was rape in his mind at the time (he may have been drinking, I have not heard). Bad mojo anyway you look at it, as my Granddad used to say "the fu***** you got probably was not worth the fu***** you are gonna get"
Regards, Scott
-
Originally posted by straffo
if so why bother with a trial ?
To decide if Kobe did it or not. That is why it took so long to decide to file charges or not. Once the DA has decided there was a rape, there is no turning back unless proven there was no rape. The jury does not decide if there was a rape, the DA has already determined that. That was the way it was explained to me.
-
Sixpence I don't know how the US legal system work ,and it's not the way it work in my country.
In my country the "Juge d'instruction" (equivalent of the DA I think ) build a file at this state the "accusé" is still presumed innocent.
I is still presumed innocent until the juror decide otherwise.
But I've not a extensive knowledge of the way justice work in my country.
-
Well, in sweden the prosecuter dont press charges unless he is convinced there has been a crime committed. Then it is up to the court to decide whether the accused person can be found guilty of said crime or not.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, in sweden the prosecuter dont press charges unless he is convinced there has been a crime committed. Then it is up to the court to decide whether the accused person can be found guilty of said crime or not.
Probably the same way in France it's a comparable (*) system if I remember ?
(*) code Napoléon ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sixpence I don't know how the US legal system work ,and it's not the way it work in my country.
In my country the "Juge d'instruction" (equivalent of the DA I think ) build a file at this state the "accusé" is still presumed innocent.
I is still presumed innocent until the juror decide otherwise.
But I've not a extensive knowledge of the way justice work in my country.
Right, Kobe is innocent, but the the DA has determined that a rape has occurred. The jury does not decide that.
-
I bet the writers of "Law and Order" wet temselves with glee when this story broke. I bet a "Ripped from the headlines!" version of this will hit the airwaves by midseason, except the Girl will have been killed.
-Sik
-
i think that the second that talk of settlement shows up, it's a clear indication as to what really happend.
If she's after money then civil court will be the place for her, and first decision quite irrelavant.
Also, there is a question of injuries. If you thought you could make couple of million of $$ by throwing yourself into a door couple of times would you do it ?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
See, the difference here is that you dont know what you're talking about, and therefore you try to reduce the level of argument to a level you can understand.
I suggest reading someting, and maybe listening to classical music to upgrade your IQ.
How sad for you, and the Swedish legal system.
One of us has been completely off his nut about this whole argument. One of us hasn't a clue about the question at hand yet feels the need to weigh in without the mearest semblance of an idea. One of us has an arid wasteland for a brain. It's the one of us that speaks Swedish.
Your still wrong by the way.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Black men have big noodlees is not a form of racial stereotyping? Is that what you are saying now?
No,
Swedish men have small noodlees...
Now that is stereotyping.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No,
Swedish men have small noodlees...
Now that is stereotyping.
The Bell curve is also a form of racial stereotyping...
-
Right, Kobe is innocent, but the the DA has determined that a rape has occurred. The jury does not decide that.
wrong, the DA doesn't get to determine if a crime has been committed or who the guilty party is. he just decides if he has a reasonably good chance of proving what he believes was done really happened and by who.
then he takes it to court and-
1. he states his case as to what he believes happened and by who.
2. then the defense attorney states his case.
3. then the DA presents evidence backing up his case.
4. defense attorney cross examines that evidence, presents his own evidence, and basically tries to shoot the DA’s case full of holes.
5. when all evidence is heard they both sum up their case and the jury decides what they believe happened and by whom.
meanwhile the judge is the referee who makes sure both sides follow the rules.
there you go. civics 101
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How sad for you, and the Swedish legal system.
One of us has been completely off his nut about this whole argument. One of us hasn't a clue about the question at hand yet feels the need to weigh in without the mearest semblance of an idea. One of us has an arid wasteland for a brain. It's the one of us that speaks Swedish.
Your still wrong by the way.
About what exactly? The fact that there can be a victim without a guilty verdict?
-
you just can't be that dense.
sometimes it is known that a crime has been comitted and the question is who did it.
sometimes you know who was there and the question is what happened.
and sometimes you have to prove what happened as well as who did it (suspected murder without a body, for example)
the Kobe case is the second type. we know who the players are we just don't know what happened. there may well have not been a rape, is not then she is no vivtim. it's just that simple.
yes, there can be a victim without ever finding who's guilty (see the first example). but this is not that kind of case. in this case there may not even have been a crime
-
Gloryhole.com ought to recruit this suicidal wench. Kobe admits she has adequate practice.
The real victim of this thing is his wife, but it was extremely entertaining to watch her stroke his check writing hand in the news conference. It was almost as bad as Hillary.
-
Hypothetically there CAN be a victim without a guilty verdict, but not in this case.
In this case the question to be determined by the jury distills down to "was there a crime?" In this case there cannot be a victim without a guilty verdict.
Get it?
-
Kobe Bryant was accused of rape?? When?
-
but it was extremely entertaining to watch her stroke his check writing hand in the news conference.
apparently he's been real busy apologizing. heard on the news last night he bought her a new diamond ring, 8 karats. that's a whole lot of sorry. he'll be damn lucky if she keeps him though. she could easily take his cash and cut him loose, and he'd deserve it too.
-
Oh, I’m sure like Michael Jordan’s wife she knew going in to the marriage the token snow flake 19 year olds were part of the deal.
And yes, being a broke bellybutton blue collar worker, with a wife that would castrate me in my sleep if I ever cheated, gives me pure entertainment that these retards with all their fame and money, are complete failures as men.
And this isn’t “I’m a superior man post”, I’m not saying if Rude posts he went to shoot skeet I’ll post in reply that I hunt pheasant and bring them home as food for “Little Half-pint”, or some gay veil of manhood, but I’d be damned if I’d ever cheat on my wife.
Kobe is rich, he’s a fool, and broke dick as a man. Regardless.
-
Sixpence quote: "Right, Kobe is innocent, but the the DA has determined that a rape has occurred. The jury does not decide that."
WRONG!!!
This is where you are wandering off the path. In a "he said-she said crime", like this very one, the DA does NOT determine if a crime took place. DOES NOT. The DA weighs the evidence to determine if they can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime took place. Again, in this case, it's the JURY, not the DA that determines if a crime took place.
Like the pepetrator, the victim is only ALLEGED until the jury decides a crime has been committed.
Sorry Sixpence, but you are flat wrong.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Oh, I’m sure like Michael Jordan’s wife she knew going in to the marriage the token snow flake 19 year olds were part of the deal.
And yes, being a broke bellybutton blue collar worker, with a wife that would castrate me in my sleep if I ever cheated, gives me pure entertainment that these retards with all their fame and money, are complete failures as men.
And this isn’t “I’m a superior man post”, I’m not saying if Rude posts he went to shoot skeet I’ll post in reply that I hunt pheasant and bring them home as food for “Little Half-pint”, or some gay veil of manhood, but I’d be damned if I’d ever cheat on my wife.
Kobe is rich, he’s a fool, and broke dick as a man. Regardless.
Well said tard.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Steve
Like the pepetrator, the victim is only ALLEGED until the jury decides a crime has been committed.
Sorry Sixpence, but you are flat wrong.
How can there be an arrest or charges filed w/o a crime?
"Steve, you are under arrest for stealing a car that we think has been stolen, but we're not sure yet. A jury will decide if the car has been stolen."
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Oh, I’m sure like Michael Jordan’s wife she knew going in to the marriage the token snow flake 19 year olds were part of the deal.
And yes, being a broke bellybutton blue collar worker, with a wife that would castrate me in my sleep if I ever cheated, gives me pure entertainment that these retards with all their fame and money, are complete failures as men.
And this isn’t “I’m a superior man post”, I’m not saying if Rude posts he went to shoot skeet I’ll post in reply that I hunt pheasant and bring them home as food for “Little Half-pint”, or some gay veil of manhood, but I’d be damned if I’d ever cheat on my wife.
Kobe is rich, he’s a fool, and broke dick as a man. Regardless.
Dam Creamo... that was darn near eloquent.
-
How can there be an arrest or charges filed w/o a crime?
"Steve, you are under arrest for stealing a car that we think has been stolen, but we're not sure yet. A jury will decide if the car has been stolen."
let me clean up your analogy, if I may. steve is under arrest for stealing a car. the car was reported stolen. steve said it was loaned to him.
if it goes to court and it turns out that it was loaned to him, then there is no crime, the car was not stolen. again, no victim.
a very close analogy for the kobe case. she says he took it without permission, kobe says she gave him the 'go ahead'
-
i never liked analogys ,because they are never right. what this comes down to is did he or didn't he and thats for the jury to decide, so all this is just blah blah.
but what amazes me is how some people think someone that is paid millions of dollars to play a kids game is some kind of a hero and can do no wrong.
-
I can't get the two words I want
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
let me clean up your analogy, if I may. steve is under arrest for stealing a car. the car was reported stolen. steve said it was loaned to him.
if it goes to court and it turns out that it was loaned to him, then there is no crime, the car was not stolen. again, no victim.
a very close analogy for the kobe case. she says he took it without permission, kobe says she gave him the 'go ahead'
What kind of car we talkin' about?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What kind of car we talkin' about?
Funk's subaru?
-
HEY WHERE'S MY CAR?!?!?
WTF?!?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
HEY WHERE'S MY CAR?!?!?
WTF?!?
But if no one gets convicted of stealing it, I guess you aren't a victim. :D
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if it goes to court and it turns out that it was loaned to him, then there is no crime, the car was not stolen. again, no victim.
The thing most of you fail to understand, and what might be confusing you, is that the courts never rule along the lines of "the court finds that the car was loaned and not stolen", instead they dissmiss the case, or find that there is not enough evidence for a guilty-verdict.
There is a difference. Because if the court would rule like that "the car was loaned, not stolen" then it would at the same time rule that the one reporting the car stolen had been lying, and that in itself is a crime. But that would lead to the rather absurd consequence that that guy would be found guilty of a crime without a trial. So therefore the courts do not touch the "what really happened"-issue in case of a not guilty-verdict...they just say that there is not sufficient evidence to find the accused guilty, and then move on.
In some extreme cases where it becomes obvious that the one reporting the crime has lied about it, the prosecuter might file new charges against him. But that is very rare.
-
You see if the car were a Gremlin, it was put out on the curb to be picked up. Hence when it is removed from where it was parked, it was not stolen.
Pintos and Yugos are perhaps in the same category.
-
You have lost it Hortland. Time to get back on the meds. I suggest the full recommended dosage...don't skimp.
SOB
-
But that would lead to the rather absurd consequence that that guy would be found guilty of a crime without a trial.
obviously the jury only decides one case at a time. so they decide if they believed the car was loaned (or at least enough doubt was raised that they are not sure it wasn't). and based on this they decide if they believe a crime was committed.
since the case for filing a false report also requires proof beyond reasonable doubt there can be no automatic guilties.
but all this is just legal back pedaling.
is it really that hard for you just to admit that you where wrong, and that it is very possible (just admit possible not definite, or even likely) that the girl is making false charges, and that if she is then she's not really a victim?
that was the original argument, when you said that she was a victim even if he didn’t rape her, and just because she said it was rape she would automatically be a victim regardless of the courts verdict. and all these analogies and other arguments about rules of law that we wandered down where just an effort to get you to see what was right in front of your face
-
Originally posted by SOB
You have lost it Hortland. Time to get back on the meds. I suggest the full recommended dosage...don't skimp.
SOB
Is that the best you can do Mr Mason?
-
Well, unfortunately I'm not a trained psychotherapist so I can't help you any further.
SOB
-
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"...?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I though I had Steve hooked but capt apathy cut the line.
:p
sorry to screw up your fish'n. nice troll job though, you had me completely convinced you where serious.
-
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.
:D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..."
-
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.
-
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?
-
Well, my first point would be don’t “quote” me 1 reply away.
The “Profile” “Search” and “Buddy” graphics do nothing to diminish the topic’s ongoing theme, and flow of the discussion. Ignore them and just post a reply. The readers will figure it out.
Another point is you seem inept when faced with argument, and use simpleton rebuttal as a result. It’s very unbecoming of a man in your important position.
I said in a few words you were inadequate as a judge, you can continue to reinforce my point. Im here all night.
-
She said it was rape...
He said he was never with her...
She still said rape...
Now he said he was with her but it was not rape...
Her story is the same, he was lieing at LEAST once so far
Just a thought
-
Originally posted by Nash
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.
I'm surprised no one remembers when probable cause was expanded. It was a big thing, people were up in arms about it. They can use it to search your house, car, lots of things. Maybe i'm showing my age?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Well, my first point would be don’t “quote” me 1 reply away.
The “Profile” “Search” and “Buddy” graphics do nothing to diminish the topic’s ongoing theme, and flow of the discussion. Ignore them and just post a reply. The readers will figure it out.
Another point is you seem inept when faced with argument, and use simpleton rebuttal as a result. It’s very unbecoming of a man in your important position.
I said in a few words you were inadequate as a judge, you can continue to reinforce my point. Im here all night.
Yes, but did you have a point? I mean it is pretty obvious to everyone here that you dont know me beyond these boards, and whatever I post on an internet BB has precious little to do with how I am IRL. Your analysis of my aptitude of argumentation and your take on me as a person or a judge is little more than personal trolling, and that is plain for everyone to see...
But what is your point? Besides the attempt at character assassination I mean? Or are you just trying to live up to your avatar?
-
"Did you have a point to all this?....".
Seems pretty clear to me. Reading comprehension problems maybe?
yowser
-
So what are you now Hortlund?
An lawyer? or out of work?
-
Hortlund, I would not accuse Creamo of character assassination.
Its more like character suicide on your part.
-
Rotlf Génius :)
-
Originally posted by Animal
Hortlund, I would not accuse Creamo of character assassination.
Its more like character suicide on your part.
Heh, we both know what you are animal...and I think we have covered your self esteem issues before, so begone *shoo*
-
Originally posted by Maniac
So what are you now Hortlund?
An lawyer? or out of work?
Both.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Heh, we both know what you are animal...and I think we have covered your self esteem issues before, so begone *shoo*
Huh? riiiiiiight....
-
Wow hortlund. Just... wow.
MiniD
-
sitting back I think I finally get this. it definitely confirms the lawyer thing.
just a complete inability to admit that that you've lost an argument, that you are wrong, and the other 50 people might be right.
when you are a lawyer you have to argue what ever side of the argument you're on even if you know it's complete BS. regardless of how little grounding in fact your side of the argument is, it's your job to try and sell it as the truth
so that must be it. he screwed up and said something dumb, and then couldn't accept being out argued, so he couldn't back down. Argues for a living after all, can’t be proven wrong by amateurs.
that would explain the continued backing of a completely asinine position on a simple issue, the ignoring the meat of posts, and finding some small, insignificant and technical part of a post to rebut because that’s the only point you could get a foothold on.
anybody else see this or is it just me?
-
No no.......
I get it now. Its all so simple really!
Hortlund has become a bleeding heart liberal pansey. He has moved so far to the left that his NOW membership has arrived and he has sworn to uphold the creed "all sex is rape".
WTFG Steve!
-
Lol, thought you had me hooked? I was squeakslapping your illogical bellybutton around, a common occurrence for leftist whacko's. Apathy just reinforced my points, making it unnecessary for me to comment further. He saved you further embarrassment.
Apathy, he was serious, until he started getting his bellybutton kicked. Then he went into, "Oh, I was just trolling." He got stomped, and lacks the courage to admit it.
-
pssssssst
"Steve" is Hortlund's first name.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
She said it was rape...
He said he was never with her...
She still said rape...
Now he said he was with her but it was not rape...
Her story is the same, he was lieing at LEAST once so far
Just a thought
Wrong, he never said he wasn't with her, he just said he didn't do it, and would be cleared of the charges....... "it" meaning the assult.
-
when you are a lawyer you have to argue what ever side of the argument you're on even if you know it's complete BS. regardless of how little grounding in fact your side of the argument is, it's your job to try and sell it as the truth
That, and hes from Sweden, alot of Swedish people are so ANAL that its scary... They only see "black or white"... Take that for racial stereotyping...!
Look at all his posts on this forum, hes always pissing on someones parade, hes the Swedish version of Lazs or Grunhertz...
Regards.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Lol, thought you had me hooked? I was squeakslapping your illogical bellybutton around, a common occurrence for leftist whacko's. Apathy just reinforced my points, making it unnecessary for me to comment further. He saved you further embarrassment.
Apathy, he was serious, until he started getting his bellybutton kicked. Then he went into, "Oh, I was just trolling." He got stomped, and lacks the courage to admit it.
Steve, you're wrong