BREAKING NEWS: KOBE

[vtbub]

Nice teary eyed press conference.

No way I would let him in front of TV cameras.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by TroyF
Thing is, he's not being charged with that.

Exact wording of Kobe Bryant's charge

I'd bet money they have some serious bruising evidence. Maybe not only penetration bruising. (evidence of arms being forcibly held, that type of thing)

It's going to be a LONG 6 months for Kobe Bryant.

TroyF

I didn't give the definition. VPI97 did. I was going on the definition he gave.

[SackAttack]

I'm just a tad disgusted after reading this thread. At what point did 'innocent until proven guilty' become 'innocent until charged with the crime'? There's an awful lot of people here who are being way too quick to assume that Kobe is, in fact, guilty simply because the DA decided to file charges.

It's not up to the DA to decide Kobe's guilt. It's up to the DA to decide whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Kobe MAY have committed the crime, and to present that case before a jury for their consideration.

But that's not even the part that disgusts me the most.

This is great. I always thought he was a stuck up punk. He's going to 1. lose his wife, and 2. ruin his rep. And thats even if he's innocent of the criminal charges.

So you think he's a stuck-up punk. Fine. great. fantastic. You have every right. As I pointed out in another thread, what is so fantastic about the possibility of a broken family and the destruction of a man's name, just because you don't like him? Should I start hoping that some catastrophe befalls you simply because I don't like your response to Kobe's situation? "Hey, I know, I hope his kid chokes and dies. That'll be suitable karma, yupyup." Gimme a break.

[JPhillips]

I'm always amazed at how people are willing to label people guilty or innocent before any evidence has been shown. How many here are convinced Scot Peterson is guilty? I honestly trust our legal system to get things right most of the time. I don't know if Kobe is guilty or innocent, but I trust that the courts will figure it out. Until then, I'm more interested in watching my Reds fold and hoping that this will finally be the year for an 8-8 Bengals season!

[Hyde]

There is a picture somewhere on the web of the woman that is accusing Bryant of this. What gets me is how someone can level an accusation like this and then are allowed to hide. While the person that they accuse (who are innocent until proven otherwise) can be plastered all over any newspaper, magazine, tv show, ect... Where is her picture at?

[JonInMiddleGA]

An interesting & amazing thread to read.

Victims, particularly those of sexual assault, are just that -- victims. They aren't suspects, they aren't charged with anything. They aren't a part of the public record, therefore their identities are not generally released.

Now, in the event the alleged victim turns out to be lying, then fairly often (nope, I don't have stats at hand, that's my perception from writing such stories over the years) they are charged with something along the lines of "giving false statements to police" or whatever the applicable charge is in the given jurisdiction. At that point, their identity does indeed become part of the public record & is subject to publication.
Meanwhile, I believe I'm generally considered by most who know me as having as least a normal level of testosterone & I'm not much on the trend toward male-bashing but I gotta tell you, there's shit in this thread that makes me ashamed to share a gender with some people.

[vtbub]

Part of me hopes that the only thing Kobe Bryant is guilty of is a bad case of judgement and a poor selection on porn ppv.

On the other hand, especially after the nation got a vivid lesson in how to botch a prosecution of a star with OJ, I can't imagine that the DA's case is anything less than solid. I hope I'm wrong.

Commenting on the last sentence of Jon's latest post on this, I agree.

[Noop]

Originally posted by andy m
your pathetic sexist language suggests you have serious issues with females. good luck figuring this out, because it's something you really need to get sorted.

So ur da champion glad 2 no that,
,,
,
my keyboard is f'd up


u r lucky



noop

[TroyF]

jon,

Well said.

Sack,

What about all of the people that think she's a money grubbing bitch? Are they OK?

My hope is that he's innocent. That's different than not guilty. I just felt from the beginning that the DA's case was a fairly strong one. (or at least THEY felt it was a strong one)

As of now, this is playing out exactly like I thought it would when it was announced. I'm not happy about that.

TroyF

[Young Drachma]

Stars in her eyes

Chicago Sun Times

[GrantDawg]

I see nothing in this girl's supposed background that would help believe or deny her story. If they are going to be able to convict Kobe, they are going to need strong evidence, and if the defense is going to discredit this girl, they are going to need something more than "she was a star-gazer."

[mckerney]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Boy, that is going to be hard to prove. That suggests no proof of force, just some sort of coercion ("I said stop and he didn't"). It is he said, she said unless they have a witness or video tape.

Wait, Kobe hasn't been hanging out with Daryll Russell, has he?

[Young Drachma]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/2326266/detail.html

[panerd]

Isn't this the catch-22 though? You know a crime has been committed against you, but you know if you come forward your life is over as you presently know it. How would some of you guys feel if it was your sister or daugter that says she was raped? Seriously, if it was a celebrity do you want justice for your daughter/sister or do you want your daughter/sister to get their lives back together. I think coming forward was very couragous.

[Easy Mac]

I was listening to the radio earlier, and they were talking to someone who had stayed at the hotel where this occcured. They said consierge were not allowed in guests rooms, nor would they help them with bags. There was also nowhere to meet with anyone unless you went into the rooms. So unless she was led there unwillingly, she went in there for a reason.

Also, he was recovering from shoulder surgery not even a month prior. I know he's a strong man, but damn, what kind of fight did this woman put up if the guy has limited use of one arm.

Not saying he's innocent, as he still fucked her, just a couple of things to think about.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Easy Mac

Also, he was recovering from shoulder surgery not even a month prior. I know he's a strong man, but damn, what kind of fight did this woman put up if the guy has limited use of one arm.

Not trying to be the total anti-Kobi of the thread, or start anything with you EasyMac, but I think a 6'7", 200 pound professional athlete would probably be able to manhandle almost any women (even at only 50%)

[Young Drachma]

Originally posted by panerd
Not trying to be the total anti-Kobi of the thread, or start anything with you EasyMac, but I think a 6'7", 200 pound professional athlete would probably be able to manhandle almost any women (even at only 50%)

I agree...but WHY DO IT?

They say he wouldn't let her out of the room. Probably wanted to control the situation (Kobe) and didn't want her wandering off and blabbing about how they just did it.

Again, the whole thing was dumb. But at the point that this girl had designs on stardom..and in the day and age where Monica Lewinsky - who didn't even sleep with the President - gets to host a tv show..at the very least, she'll be able to get a book deal, a media interview and people will know her name for years...whether he's guilty or not!

Trauma, all that...sure, fine. But then he's a criminal. At the point there was sex, the point we presume he's guilty, then someone needs to look at the situation and say "wait, but what if he's not?"

The adultery thing has nothing to do with anything. Image, sure..that it does. But that's more the media trying to find a black star to pin their "good black" hopes on, more than Kobe's own doing. I mean...Michael Jordan wasn't flaunting the fact that he had relationships behind his wife's back either, but when it finally came out....he tried to bury it anyway he could. He didn't take as great a hit, because he always ensured his basketball was back in the limelight, not the other stuff.

I don't think this was all about money. And I don't think the girl herself was the only one who can use this as an asset to do whatever... That said, Kobe obviously had a huge lapse in judgement...but he's learned now, that's for sure.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by SackAttack
I'm just a tad disgusted after reading this thread. At what point did 'innocent until proven guilty' become 'innocent until charged with the crime'? There's an awful lot of people here who are being way too quick to assume that Kobe is, in fact, guilty simply because the DA decided to file charges.

In a court of law, yes. But people will still have opinions one way or another, and those opinions won't necessarily change because of the verdict. Are you disgusted when people say they believe the West Memphis Three are innocent after they were found guilty? Are you disgusted that people still think O.J. is guilty, even after a jury found him not-guilty?

Presumed innocence is in the eyes of the law, people will still form opinions before a trial, much as freedom of speach only applies to the government punishing speech, while people are free to judge and react however they choose to something someone has said.

[Young Drachma]

She's the girl laying down on the right...

[panerd]

I would bang the one in the back right.

[Easy Mac]

Bow wow wow yippee o yippee a.

Jeez Kobe, you can do better.

Is that a Jewish community, because those girls got some noses on them.

[Young Drachma]

yeah, my sentiments exactly. gives more credence to the "he tried to take it" theory...

i mean, if she was emotionally unstable like they she was.. she probably did it and felt remorseful afterwards. that hardly constitutes sexual assault.

again, not making light of her plight.. just figure if the media can talk about the implications of this on Kobe - as he was dumb...there are going to be some - then we can at least talk about her.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Dark Cloud
yeah, my sentiments exactly. gives more credence to the "he tried to take it" theory...

i mean, if she was emotionally unstable like they she was.. she probably did it and felt remorseful afterwards. that hardly constitutes sexual assault.

again, not making light of her plight.. just figure if the media can talk about the implications of this on Kobe - as he was dumb...there are going to be some - then we can at least talk about her.

We can talk about her, but just as with Kobe, we shouldn't assume anything about her either. You need to be fair here.

We can't assume that just because Kobe had sex (a very bad judgement call) that he raped her. On the other hand, we can't assume that she went into the room intending for something other than sex either. (again, bad judgement call on her part)

As for the one arm thing, you're kidding right?

TroyF

[mckerney]

As for the one arm thing, you're kidding right?

If the sling does not fit you must not acquit, or something like that.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by TroyF
jon,

Well said.

Sack,

What about all of the people that think she's a money grubbing bitch? Are they OK?

Shrug, has she filed a suit in civil court against him? Or is he only facing criminal proceedings? If she hasn't attempted to get any kind of monetary recompense from him, then regardless of whether or not she's the manipulative one here, 'money grubbing' doesn't fit.

But that's irrelevant. She's not the one on trial here, although as others have pointed out, it's rather unfair that the accused can be splashed across the front page, while the alleged victim can hide in relative obscurity.

But even THAT isn't my point. Our system of criminal justice presupposes that the accused is, in fact, innocent, unless a preponderance of the evidence convinces a jury otherwise. What I'm seeing here, largely, is people looking at the accusation, and because the accused is somebody they hold a dislike for, irrational or otherwise, they're expressing glee, certainty of guilt, and hope that the man's personal life falls apart.

'Money grubbing bitch' isn't remotely in the same category here. Nobody's saying "I'm glad she got (allegedly) raped, she deserved it, she had it coming, I hope she gets pregnant and dies in childbirth" or something similarly repugnant.

People hate Kobe, then they're gonna hate him. It's one thing to express an opinion of what type of person you think somebody is. It's quite another to take that to the next level and actively hope for the destruction of the person's private life and to be happy that they're going through adversity.

Neither is particularly appealing from a, well...'moral,' for lack of a better word, standpoint. But they're in two totally different classes, and I would hope you recognize that.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by mckerney
In a court of law, yes. But people will still have opinions one way or another, and those opinions won't necessarily change because of the verdict. Are you disgusted when people say they believe the West Memphis Three are innocent after they were found guilty? Are you disgusted that people still think O.J. is guilty, even after a jury found him not-guilty?

Presumed innocence is in the eyes of the law, people will still form opinions before a trial, much as freedom of speach only applies to the government punishing speech, while people are free to judge and react however they choose to something someone has said.

Sure. And juries are human. They make mistakes, in favor of the defendant at times, and in favor of the prosecution.

As you pointed out, people have opinions. They'll see the evidence, they'll draw conclusions. If a jury acquits Kobe, just as a jury acquitted O.J., then that means that as far as the law is concerned, they're innocent. People may believe otherwise, just as there are people who believe the moon landing was staged.

Believing that somebody was wrongly acquitted/convicted, however, is quite a bit different from assuming that just because a) one is famous, and b) one is accused of a crime, that it therefore follows that he's automatically guilty. The former is a matter of opinion, the latter is a dangerous precedent to set, legally speaking. To convict in the court of public opinion, absent any sort of hard evidence, is just a step shy of a return to the lynch mob mentality. If simple accusation is evidentiary proof of guilt in and of itself, then why even bother with a legal system?

In cases of sexual assault, alleged or otherwise, the names are generally withheld to protect the victim from unwanted attention during emotionally trying times. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but I think that we need to also extend the privacy shield to the accused, as well. Close court proceedings to the media when an individual is being charged with a crime, or at the very least, expunge the names from the public record. If John Doe is convicted, then at that point, release the names.

You often read about how the defense wants a venue change because public opinion in a jurisdiction is sufficiently poisoned as to ensure that a fair trial isn't possible. Wouldn't protecting the identity of the accused be a positive first step towards reducing or eliminating the contamination of the jury pool? If justice truly is the goal, then that doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[GrantDawg]

The moral of the story:

If your a celebrity and you want to rape someone, make sure they tried out for "American Idol" then no one will believe them.

[sabotai]

"Also, he was recovering from shoulder surgery not even a month prior. I know he's a strong man, but damn, what kind of fight did this woman put up if the guy has limited use of one arm."

Not too long ago, my girlfreind challenged me to keep her down with just one arm. We were just goofing around. I was holding her down and she could not move, so she said she bet she could get away if I just used one arm. I used my left arm (I'm right handed). She failed to get up. (*note that I am a pretty strong guy)

Now, take into consideration that Kobe did have use of the arm (not at full percent, though), and that he's a pro athlete and I'm far from one. I consider myself a strong person, but I doubt I am as strong as Kobe. Well, maybe if we just compared arm strength, but he's definatly more in shape than me overall and a hell of a lot taller. I doubt he'd have any trouble handling this girl.

[oykib]

I think that "Rape Shield" laws undermine the justice system. When you compare the possibility of trauma that the victim/accuser will face to the way that such laws tend to bias media coverage and, to an extent, trials themselves, you realize that the former is much more acceptable than the latter.

I thought the same thing when Marv Albert was on trial.

The prosecution brought out every piece of 'evidence' they could about Marv's life. Every sordid detail was brought to light. Marv wore the woman's panties. Marv spanked her. Marv bit her. Marv wears a toupe (like that's got anything to do with anything). None of these things are particularly incriminating, in and of themselves.

But when the defense can't discuss the fact that they were in a relationship for several years and most of that stuff is, likely, shit she got off on too or, at least, acquiesced to, then it just looks like Marv is on a freak attack. It had to have gotten to the point that Marv just wanted to plead, guilty or not, just because he knew NBC wasn't going to retain him if the public's perception was that he was a perv.

Some of the 'rape shield' laws are more reasonable than Virginia's. But I think that my point is fairly well illustrated. Better a hundred guilty men go free... and all that.