As I mentioned somewhere above, my first reaction to this case was actually anger that something like this could happen. However, after taking into consideration all of what we know so far, this case is turning into a joke. Sure, ultimately the courts will make the final decision on this case, but I wonder if you used the same discretion with the James Byrd case or with Rodney King (mind you, the Rodney King video only told part of the story that took place that night).

As for the rest of your comments, while you took offence at me calling out Liberals, you fail to acknowledge the fact (as pointed out in this post) that I LIVE in ground zero where these issues are taking place. But according to your logic here, I am supposed to tone it down simply because I do not have name, rank and serial number of both sides of the issue. While this may have the appearance of being fair, it does nothing to address the issues mentioned here at hand. I have seen rich folks in these cities walk over the homeless and then turn around and accuse the nation for not doing enough. Are conservatives guilty of this? You bet. But I do not know of too many Conservative-controlled cities in this country. In the world where I live (West Coast), Liberals have been in control for decades, yet the problems mentioned here have become worse. But if I mention the word “Liberal” in my rebuke, somehow I am not being fair. Go figure.

The bottom line here is this, you may not like the fact that I call out Liberals (and Conservatives) on some of the issues, but for whatever reason you make the choice to keep coming back here. Now either you are one bored person who doesn’t have anything better to do, or their is something in my “madness” that keeps bringing you back here. I may not always be right here, but if I notice something is not adding up based on what I know (trust me, I spend hours doing this), I am going to give my opinion on it. The numbers to this site tell me that I must be saying something right.

===

Very well then.

Here is one of several posts on this site where you’ve already decided the case is phony using a series of non sequiturs defaming the alleged victim in the Duke rape case and its DA, without having much (if any) first hand knowlege of forensic and/or circumstantial evidence in the possession of investigators. You’ve employed a similar style of dissemblance in this thread in judging (liberal) public reaction to illegal immigration, homelessness, and poverty as excessive — again, prior to having a full command of facts in your possession.

“… what it means is there should be a goal by all sides that TRUTH [emphasis yours] is the ultimate goal.”

That’s why we… at least some of us… respect due process, although it’s often not upheld in the public sphere, especially during political discourse. However due process is not an end unto itself; it’s a means for determining justice from two sides presenting what they each believe to be the truth. It’s for this reason the alleged victim in the Duke incident is to afforded the presumption of innocense as are the alleged assailants prior to due process running its course. I happen to think an informal version of this standard applies to any participant in a conversation, public or private, as a matter of courtesy.

I believe you’re mistaking the normative reaction of sympathy for passing judgement ahead of knowing the facts — something many people (including you, BTW) do, IMO.

For starters, while I do not have a problem admitting when I am wrong, if you are going to make such an claim please provide examples supporting your claim. Specific examples, please.

The important thing to remember when participating in the Court of Public Opinion is it only serves as an introduction to a given issue. It remains incumbent upon each of us to educate ourselves on specifics when interested so that we’re secure in the choices we make.

But if the choices you make are based on half truths, then you like everyone else should be called on it. This does not mean that I am always right or you are wrong (or the other way around), what it means it that their should be a goal by all sides that TRUTH is the ultimate goal. If one side tries to bury or is quick to dismiss a certain set of facts without examination, then that side is on the path of error. They are no longer interested in the truth, just a validation of their opinion. The problem in the Duke rape case is that while there was an overwhelming assumption that this woman was telling the truth, many of those who shared that initial opinion have been very quiet when evidence to the contrary began to surface.

Rhythm:

And there is also a posibility that this woman is lying and cared nothing about wrecking the reputations of those who stuck their neck out for her. Have you factored in those posibilities into your reasoning?

“…but it’s also a possibility that the two may not relate in her mind. just as many women have intimacy issues after being raped while others don’t, or don’t to severe degrees…”takes all kinds.”

Let’s be real here for a moment. Do you really believe that a woman that was GANG RAPED to the point where she was sent to the hospital and reported it to the police would feel comfortable enough to put herself back in the same environment where it could happen again in 2 weeks? Sorry, but the economy is not that bad. You response here so far is proving my point that there are folks out there that WILLINGLY will not look at or consider all the evidence that has surfaced thus far. If you are trying to make this into a case for rape victims everywhere, this is not the case.

MIB, I am very serious about those specific examples.

The important thing to remember when participating in the Court of Public Opinion is it only serves as an introduction to a given issue. It remains incumbent upon each of us to educate ourselves on specifics when interested so that we’re secure in the choices we make.

I hear what you are saying, but TRUTH is something that is not achieved by popular vote. If this young woman was lying, then society needs to “grow a pair” and call if for what it is. These are the last two lines of my post:

“While it is important to remain sensitive these important issues, we also cannot allow ourselves to become stupefied by political correctiveness.”

In this country, a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty. This is conclusion I had to reach (even though my “Blackness” was ready to lock these boys in prison for a long time). Unfortunately, most people chose to make this a case for women’s rights/Class-ism/and racism without wanting to hear all of the facts. And those that did discuss these facts were oftentimes viewed as “racist” or “anti-women’s rights”.

also, as a member of the ANQTV crowd (meaning ALMOST never…), i would rather risk disbelieving alleged perpetrators than disbelieve (read: re-victimize) the alleged victim. this is true for me in most cases.

also, i think a large part of this reaction is just that–a reaction. it’s the result of this country’s automatic defense and support of athletes charged with sexual assault. Nobody wants the game to be cancelled. you see it in high school, college, and the pros. it’s like, we’ll deal with whether or not he’s a rapist next week. but in the meantime, we need him to score some points on the field (court, etc.). so, often i feel obligated to prompt people to consider the alleged victim’s claims simply becuase sports center, cnn, and local news want to point out all the reasons she’s “lying” based on the faulty notion that rape is about sex. so the “logic” is, why would he rape her when he could have any woman he wanted? and the answer to such logic is that he wouldn’t, if rape were about sex rather than power and control.

so, somebody has to be a part of the NQTV group to balance out the NQTA (never question the athlete) group.

peace