Quote:
Originally posted by: LakerMania
Quote:
Originally posted by: LRB
Quote:
Originally posted by: LakerMania
Quote:
Originally posted by: sturm und drang
I thought Kobe was on trial, not the victim? Oh, that's right: it's a rape trial. Vinnieponte has a point – albeit not the point he meant to make.
|
I thought the defendant was innocent until proven guilty? If she's already "the victim" then Kobe is already guilty. Oh that's right: he's a black man and she's a white girl.
|
That she is a victim does not mean that Kobe is guilty. It is well documented that she received trama to her sexual organs. So she is definitely a victim of that trama.
|
That's about the lamest excuse I have ever heard so far. With that, you could just as well say that Kobe is "the victim" because of the monetary loss the encounter between him and this girl has cost him. I think most rational people can decipher what the use of the word "victim" really means here. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]
|
Actually there has been enough evidence legally documented to bring charges for a crime of rape. There is not evenoug evidence legally documented to show any crime has been commited against Kobe. There may be at some time in the future, and yes then Kobe would be entitled to the title of victim. However that time is not now. Most rational people can discern the term vicitm here. Heck even Kobe's lawyers can discern it. One of their main strategies is to try and cast doubt that the damage was done by someone else. When there is strong evidence that a crime was commited, and there is in this case, then the girl deserves the right to be called the victim. That doesn't mean that Kobe is automatically presumed guilty. It's just that the girl is not automatically presumed guilty of lying or falsefying her rape. That there was physical damage to here of a sexual nature is an undisputed fact in this case. Who did it may be disputed, but not that it was done.