posted on July 24, 2003 10:20:42 AM new
Ok thats venture off the political landscape for a bit. Whats everyones first reaction thoughts to Kobe and his sexual assault case.
Another smug star who thinks he can do whatever he wants ?
a girl trying to accuse a celeb for her own name recognition ?
Consentual sex gone wrong ?
Flat out rape that he will probably get away with ?
and what are your thought on revealing the identity of the accuser in this case. Is that right or is that wrong and why ?
after long thought on that one I am kind of in between, if the accused names (not just this case) can be hung out to dry then why no the accuser seems like a double standard to me. IF an accused was cleared before a trial then the accuser would never be named and the accused would have that label hung on him like a scarlet letter the rest of his life , guilty or not.
posted on July 24, 2003 12:04:31 PM new
I don't know. He probably did it. Some kind of big sports-star-ego thing. The fact that he could be away from a wife who looks like his long enough to even THINK about another woman is proof enough for me that he's a fool, rapist or not
edited to change 'moron' to 'fool'.
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
[ edited by profe51 on Jul 24, 2003 12:06 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2003 01:14:09 PM new
He's an idiot first class!
She's a Gold-Digging B!tch!
Does He think that because he is a big-name sports players, this wouldn't get out? Why sure, reporters care nothing for celebrities private lives....
Does she wants us to believe that she went to a private hotel room ALONE with a big-name sports player to just discuss the subtle nuances of the game of Basketball? Naaah, she figured she hit the lottery here, pay enough money and it will go away......
posted on July 24, 2003 01:39:57 PM new
In addition to that, the prosecutor may be at fault if he failed to enlighten her about possible adverse consequences involved in a rape charge such as this one.
posted on July 24, 2003 01:47:00 PM new
Good points, what about the practice of naming the accused and not the accuser in sexual assault cases. They touched on that on Scarborough Country last night and I agreed on keeping the accuser anonymous until then. IF a person is innocent and does not ever get to trial he (or she I suppose) is screwed anyway and marked for life. I would say keep them both unnamed or fair is fair and name them both and yep Profe he is a first class dumbass if nothing else
posted on July 24, 2003 01:51:17 PM new
Definately didn't use his brains on this one. I personally think he fell prey to a gold digger, too. There are plenty of other places to go to than a hotel room.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on July 24, 2003 02:44:35 PM new
Just saw that he purchased his wife a $4 million dollar " I am sorry I'm a dumbass" ring. I guess if you can't show true love and dedication than you can buy it for 4 mill.
The PR machine is just getting rolling for him also. By the time this ever gets to trial that girl will be made out to be the devil himself ( or herself as I like to picture satan )
posted on July 24, 2003 02:45:42 PM new
Kraftdinner, severe stress must have caused the mouth contortions....maybe, dry mouth?...
Tomyou asked if the girl should be identified. My answer to that is yes. If a rape charge is made against
another identified individual, the person making that very serious charge should be named.
posted on July 24, 2003 03:16:44 PM new
Things like this seem to happen to people that get married too soon.!
I agree with you Helen. Rape no longer has the bad girl stigma attached to it, so if it was indeed rape, she should WANT to go public, if for no other reason than to help others.
posted on July 24, 2003 05:51:31 PM new
Is it a coincindence that many famous people who commit adultery have disasters fall upon them? A few that come to mind are JFK, Martin Luther King, Magic Johnson, Bill Clinton, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker (the reverend), Jesse Jackson, Kobe Bryant...
posted on July 24, 2003 09:10:34 PM news it a coincindence that many famous people who commit adultery have disasters fall upon them? A few that come to mind are JFK, Martin Luther King, Magic Johnson, Bill Clinton, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker (the reverend), Jesse Jackson, Kobe Bryant...
What about all the non-famous adulterers who don't get caught, or whose lives are not ruined even if they are caught. Maybe god is being especially hard on the famous. I'd say that's as it should be
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
posted on July 26, 2003 02:14:26 AM new
Stealing a line from Cheryl's John Lennon:
"Instant Karma's gonna get you...gonna knock ya upside the head...."
posted on July 27, 2003 08:17:03 AM new
Apparently there are other women coming forward to say they had affairs with him. No accusations of rape, though. I was wondering when and if other women would come forward.
Also, apparently the alleged victim delivered something to his room as she was a desk clerk or something similar.
I think he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
As for the rape charge, we shall see. He is innocent until proven guilty. The alleged victim is innocent of false accusations until proven otherwise.
posted on July 27, 2003 08:31:19 AM new
As for the identifiation of the alleged victim, the alleged accused has the right to face and question the alleged accusor, which happens at the depostions and the trial.
In other alleged crimes, the alleged accusers' are protected.
Yes, the social stigma of the female rape victim is better, but there are some that still think it's her fault.
Even though Rules of Evidence no allow (it wasn't too long ago that it did) the female victims' sexual history to be shared in court nor what she was wearing at the time of the alleged rape, there are other underlining prejudices. "Well, she should have known better to go to his hotel room...so-so is such a great guy he would never do that...She's a ho that's all. She sleeps with anything with pants" We still hear these. Blaming the victim.
Yeah, it's gotten better, but we still have a ways to go before we stop completely in blaming the victim.
[ edited by clarksville on Jul 27, 2003 08:35 AM ]
posted on July 27, 2003 09:07:36 AM new
Clarks - in cases like this one, history says a lot. basic info out there right now says that this is not the most well balanced person, attention seeking, not extremely sexually discriminating.
It'll be interesting to hear the actual case because right now I think it's a case of consensual followed by some remorse and possible resentment.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 27, 2003 11:14:06 AM newin cases like this one, history says a lot. basic info out there right now says that this is not the most well balanced person, attention seeking, not extremely sexually discriminating.
Her "history" tells us nothing about the truth of what happened in that room.
It doesn't make any difference is she was a "crack hoe", insane, nymphomaniac, who has lied about other things, no one has the right to rape her.
I also find it irrelevant what parties she attended after the alleged rape, nor what her demeanor was, nor even if she talked about his "size", if she was hospitalized for a mental condition, and suicidal. These things tell us nothing about what happened in that room, and there is no "norm" regarding how any individual will react after they are raped.
All this "history" does is muddy the water about what went on in that hotel room.
If it is true about the bruises to her face etc., then I find that corroberrating evidence enough to prosecute.
No matter who the person is, once they communicate that they do not consent to have sex, then it is criminal to have sex with them.
posted on July 27, 2003 11:23:02 AM new
I am beginning to agree with the British method of naming neither the accused nor accuser(s). But we must weigh this against the possibility of people coming forward about the alleged crime and its defendant, other witnesses etc, due to the names being in the press.
posted on July 27, 2003 11:50:15 AM new
Reamond - I do not disagree that once a person says no it's over and done however my inclination in this case is that she did not say no and that the rape allegations come from indignation or regret that occured after a consentual event. (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt - my first instinct was money)
Her past behaviorial trends are a clue as to the likelihood that she would enter into the situation of her own free will. i.e - it is far more believable that someone with a promiscuous history would involve themselves in a one night stand than a virgin.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 27, 2003 12:21:17 PM new
All the information which you base your "informed" opinion on is carefully leaked by either the defendant or the alleged victim. I have met neither so have no idea as to their credibility. I find it amusing that Bryant's good image is essentially based on one fact alone that he is legally married. I guess that in itself speaks to something although that something is not me.
It is interesting that the same society which faults one man for helping an intern earn her presidential kneepads sees another as the victim of a mentally deficient seductress hell bent on profit.
On a more positive note the NBA announced late last evening that they will in the future be strictly enforcing their 267 strikes and your out policy. The players association is expected to appeal the ruling.
posted on July 27, 2003 12:40:18 PM new
Dave - Bryant has had that image since long before he got married. When he emerged from high school and went straight into the NBA all eyes were on him (much as they will be on LeBron James this next year) for signs of immaturity run amok on the NBA playground. He quickly earned the respect of team mates, opponents and sports writers as a low key and mature young man. Over 7 years there has been nothing in his behavior that has changed that opinion and in a sport beleaguered by bad images and out of control lifestyles Bryant has remained someone clear of controversy. He's only been married for 2 of those 7 years.
As I stated earlier - it will be interesting to hear the actual evidence which none of us really have heard. It's only natural that a person will form opinions based on info as it leaks out however actual judgements (at least on my part) are reserved for trial
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 27, 2003 01:09:36 PM newHer past behaviorial trends are a clue as to the likelihood that she would enter into the situation of her own free will. i.e - it is far more believable that someone with a promiscuous history would involve themselves in a one night stand than a virgin.
Really ? How do you know this to be the "rule" or even a "liklihood" ?
Are virgins exempt from being motivated by money, fame, etc ?
This belief in baseless "liklihoods" is why we have priests raping children for decades and no one believing the kids.
posted on July 27, 2003 02:14:26 PM new
Reamond - quite frankly if you can't figure out why a virgin is less likely to #*!@ a guy she met 15 minutes ago that a more experienced and promisculous person is there is no point in continuing., You are just argueing for the sake of argueing.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
Let's see if I can clarify on what I posted in regards to both parties in rape charges.
Firstly, I was making a comment in general, not to this Kobe case.
Also, I was referring to Helen's and Kraftdinner's comments to how the victim is viewed. I looked at that both in the court trial and in society perspecitves.
In court, there is what is considered "Rules of Evidence." This governs what can and can not be entered as evidence. About 30 to 40 years ago, female rape victims sexual history was entered as evidence and the women were cross-examined on this, while the men weren't. There was an imbalance in that respect.
Also, evidence on what she wore was entered. If she was wearing a mini-skirt etc, it was considered "ok" to rape her.
It could be that some of what we are hearing and reading in the media, won't be allowed under Rules of Evidence.
If her history and reputation is shared in court, then his should also be shared.
I am not commenting on the revealing of the identities because I can see both sides.
I just heard a news coverage that a young girl was identified as to being the Kobe alleged victim. Now they are sueing the people who said she was. --BTW she wasn't the victim.
The media have learned in recent times to add "alleged" when identifing an alleged criminal. So I think they need to be careful when identifying the alleged victim.
Personally, I wouldn't want to live ine UK. They don't have the freedom of speech like we do. Can't have it both ways. Don't sacrifice one freedom for another.
posted on July 27, 2003 06:20:26 PM new
You state that in over seven years his behavior....don't you me what is purported to be his behavior or do you have some first hand knowlege as to his behavior. I have none and really have no opinion in this case in particular. It is interesting how folks seem to buy into any media hype that is fed them by various sources. It isn't even he says she says it more to the effect of Snooke, Schaft and Kahn Public Relations Associates says on behalf of.....
posted on July 27, 2003 06:21:31 PM new
Clarks - apparently some website pulled a senior pic from the local high school and posted it. Problem was that they pulled the wrong girls pic and now she is in hell. Unless she can figure out who originally posted the pic and show that it was done with malice I don't think there is a suit there. From my understanding they are just trying to get the pic pulled from the web so that she endures no further harassment.
Her sexual history can be brought up if it shows a pattern of bahavior or if there is a witness that can directly dispute a statement made by her, basically the same is true with him. He actually has greater protection than she does from derogatory testimony in order to avoid undue bias.
It's going to be a very interesting trial. I think that there is a great deal of circumstantial since I would think that any strong physical evidence (other than DNA which is a given) would have resulted in a quicker filing of charges.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 27, 2003 08:45:20 PM newquite frankly if you can't figure out why a virgin is less likely to #*!@ a guy she met 15 minutes ago that a more experienced and promisculous person is there is no point in continuing
Oh I did figure it out. You base you position on unsupported sterEotypes.
There is nothing to base a conclusion on regarding what a virgin will or will not do with a millionaire NBA star if an opportunity arises anymore than we could say what a sexually experienced female would do.
Like I pointed out before, these types of sterEotypes are what allows preists and others to become above suspicion, and what allows us to cast baseless suspicion upon "promisculous" persons.
posted on July 27, 2003 10:18:39 PM new
Dave - although I am frankly bored out of my skull by basketball I have followed Kobe to some extent since he came out of high school. I was one of those people that thought that an 18 year old kid making millions and on the road was going to be a handful and a half and was waiting for him to blow up. Too much money, too many groupies, too many clubs and too many nights with nothing to do after the game. That's usually a bad mixture. Kobe never seemed to fall into the mix. I was in LA when he started so we got Kobe alerts for breakfast lunch and dinner... never did anyone have a negative thing to say. Do I know him? No. But at the same time, I'm not going on two weeks worth of media blitz.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
