Quote:
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
There's a good reason for rape shield laws. A woman's sexual history has absolutely no bearing on whether she consented to sex on a PARTICULAR occasion, any more than a poor driver's driving record has bearing on whether they were negligent in a PARTICULAR car accident. It's irrelevant, and the defense wants to introduce that evidence for the sole purpose of smearing the name of the accuser, so that in essence the accuser will be on trial rather than the accused. As S&D pointed out, if they're a skank or a whore, how can they really be raped? Right? I mean, we all know that they want to be bent over a chair and physically injured during intercourse, right?
|
Wrong, see my reply to S&D. Your insinuation that by calling her a "skank" means I'm alligned with the "she must have been asking for it" crowd is false and completely your own creation.
Quote:
Originally posted by: kg_veteran<
It's sickening to me to hear such nonsense. It's equally sickening to have to listen to the accusation that people on this board think Kobe's guilty because he's rich and black. Their OPINION couldn't have anything to do with the evidence that we know about, could it? Nah, they just want all rich, black people to go to jail.
Sad.
|
I cannot say for sure whether or not people thinking Kobe's guilty is based on his race, wealth or combination of both. I will attest however that I believe the opinions of Kobe's presumed guilt are based largely on factors that have nothing to do with the facts presented in this case.