Just wrong!

[Guest]

This attitude will not get you very far here, I'm afraid. At least not with me.

And not with me, either.

I think it's damned convenient to say, "Look before you leap." But how realistic is it? And most of the cases coming out of our fine military academies these days, have much more to do with group attacks on newbies who were not drinking or playing strip poker. But in my mind it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I have every right to streak the neighborhood without a stitch of clothing on and the only person who has any right to accost me are the authorities. Not you, not any other horny young guy that sees my naked body and equates it with opportunity, has any right to lay a finger on me.

~lucky

Very well said, Lucky. Was going to say more, but there isn't really anything I could say that wouldn't just repeat what you've already stated.

Pops made some good points earlier - at least about the judicial system in this country (UK). In rape cases, and such like, the owness is usually upon the victim to prove that she (or he) was raped, not on the alleged rapist to prove that they didn't commit the rape. I know, innocent until proven guilty, and all that, but what about the often irreperable damage done to that victim?

As to this point, from Godblesstexas: "If you're too afraid or ashamed or whatever else to tell anybody, then when people don't believe you, DEAL WITH IT."

You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. I wasn't going to get angry about this, but that statement did it for me.

I haven't got much of an opinion on the case described at the start of this thread, because, as others have said, there just isn't enough evidence to go on there. But, I will say: where there is any doubt about the integrity of a person's character - especially when allegations come from multiple sources, and particularly when it comes to the military, and other public servants - surely, the morally correct thing to do is to err on the side of caution, and, at the very least, suspend that person - indefinitely, and until it can be PROVEN that those allegations were false.

Lou

 

[ABSTRUSE]

A man who becomes an officer is commisioned by congress as an officer AND a gentleman. A man, in whom the court martial on base had so little confidence in as to drum out of the service strikes me as being hardly officer material.

From the article it appears to me he was ejected from the service, then appealed and was reinstated. In effect he avoided having the case adjudicated at all. Rather convienient.

-Colly

Colly, my voice of reason. I was hoping you would jump in on this, I wanted to get more POV from women. (no offense gents). I've always held firm in the statement "NO means NO". We have to remember that rape is a crime of violence and control. It is a violation to one body and mind. I'm not saying there aren't women out there who have falsely accused innocent men of this crime, but this one irked me solely because of where it took place. The everyday Joe who commited such an act would not have the backing this assumed man did and his backside would be jailed immediatly.
Let's say this man is guilty per se, and he now has a rank and will go on with his career. He has already gotten away with this once and got backing on it, would he do it again and will another woman becomes a victim?
Just another perspective.

~A~

 

[Boxlicker101]

Colly, my voice of reason. I was hoping you would jump in on this, I wanted to get more POV from women. (no offense gents). I've always held firm in the statement "NO means NO". We have to remember that rape is a crime of violence and control. It is a violation to one body and mind. I'm not saying there aren't women out there who have falsely accused innocent men of this crime, but this one irked me solely because of where it took place. The everyday Joe who commited such an act would not have the backing this assumed man did and his backside would be jailed immediatly.
Let's say this man is guilty per se, and he now has a rank and will go on with his career. He has already gotten away with this once and got backing on it, would he do it again and will another woman becomes a victim?
Just another perspective.

~A~

I agree that NO means NO, but I also believe that YES means YES. I also agree that rape is frequently, but not always, a crime of violence and control but there is not enough information to determine if that is what happened. Sometimes, if a person, man or woman is drinking, inhibitions will be lost and the person will do things he or she would not have otherwise done, such as a woman playing strip poker with a bunch of men. Or, maybe having sex with a man she otherwise wouldn't have had any use for. What I mean is, suppose the man and woman were drinking and they decided to have sex, and it was consensual. Then, when she sobered up, she decided she had made a mistake and claimed she was raped because her judgement was impaired. That, I say, is BS. Remember, this is not a matter of being passed out that I am describing, or drugged, or anything like that; it is a matter of having lowered inhibitions. I say that would not be rape, and that people should be responsible for their actions whether they are drunk or not.

As for the pretext of his expulsion, I know nothing about that so I cannot offer an opinion. From the sounds of it, it was something trivial that was blown out of proportion but I don't know what it was.

 

[KenJames]

Does anyone else find this repulsive?

Cadet Accused of Rape to Become Officer
Thu Apr 1,11:08 AM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!


By ROBERT WELLER, Associated Press Writer

. . .

Rodriguez has denied assaulting Ballas. His lawyers said she had been drinking heavily with Rodriguez and others the night of the alleged assault and had been involved in a game of strip poker before the alleged attack on Oct. 13, 2001.

. . .

Y'all are talking a lot about her playing strip poker and drinking, and therefore bearing some of the responsibility for whatever happened, when all the article says is that the guy's lawyers claim that's what she was doing.

I believe in straight shootin', but it's good to be sure of your aim.

 

[NoJo]

Box, I'll go further: Not only does No mean NO and YES mean YES, but as soon as a woman says YES, that's it, she's fucked. It's despicable that a woman should say YES then change her mind and say NO. She deserves everything she gets if she says YES, no matter what happens subsequently.

That's why we have two words in English: YES, and NO. To keep things simple.

 

[Guest]

That's why we have two words in English: YES, and NO. To keep things simple.

Uh, Joe, what about yep and yeah? or uh-huh? English is so subtle at times, eh?

Perdita

 

[Edward Teach]

Just for the sake of argument -

Suppose for some reason there had been only male cadets playing strip poker and one of them got raped.

Would he have been "asking for it" because he played the game and took his clothes off?

Ed

 

[NoJo]

I had the same thought, Ed. There have been a few cases recently in the news here of male-rape in the army. In one case of repeated offence the victims were too ashamed to admit to being raped which kept the case from coming to light sooner.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just for the sake of argument -

Suppose for some reason there had been only male cadets playing strip poker and one of them got raped.

Would he have been "asking for it" because he played the game and took his clothes off?

Ed

If he had agreed to sex it would not have been rape. If he had not agreed, it would have been rape. The same laws should apply to either men or women. I don't think anybody seriously questions that.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Box, I think teach was referring to whether or not there would have been fingerpointing toward the victim after the assault. i.e. Would someone have said, "Well he got drunk and showed his hoo hoo's!", insinuating that he had it coming because his behavior suggested he:

a. wanted it
b. deserved it
c. asked for it

Of course your post was correct as far as right/wrong is concerned, but I took from teach's post that because the victim was a woman and acted in a certain manner, that her behavior merited the attack. Would the same defense, as given by the Commandant in the female's case, have worked if the victim were male?

I'd say definitely not. Women lose again.

~lucky

 

[BlackSnake]

I wouldn't mind seeing me a fine looking woman running down the street in nothing but dental floss. Rawr! But I'd watch her through my living room window. I wouldn't run out and have my way with her.

Don't think that I don't agree that people should be able to feel free of being harmed, because they should. But there are plenty of people out there who obviously can't control themselves and will go after the floss lady. In the words of Metallica, it's "sad but true."

All I'm saying is that just because I have every right to run around in dental floss doesn't mean I'm going to. "Permissible" does not equal "wise." I don't ever want to be raped, so I'm going to try my best to avoid it. Some of these things that people do are not avoiding it; they're encouraging it.

Yes, of course actually running around naked would offend other people, but the streaker is not asking to be harmed. Locked up, but not harmed.

Society pays when rape occurs. Women become fearful. Have anyone had a woman to cross to the other side of the street when they approach them. Only to have her to cross back after there is a safe distance between the two of you. Man! That's some serious bad breath. And I'm not that damn scarry lookin'.

It's very sad when women are in constant fear for their safety. I vote for due process, and then swift punishment.

 

[BlackSnake]

...

Of course your post was correct as far as right/wrong is concerned, but I took from teach's post that because the victim was a woman and acted in a certain manner, that her behavior merited the attack. Would the same defense, as given by the Commandant in the female's case, have worked if the victim were male?

I'd say definitely not. Women lose again.

~lucky

Yes, women lose in that situation, because of the natural order of things. It would be different if the man was gay. He would be treated as if he was a woman:

Have you ever had sexual intercourse with a man?
How many men have you had sexual intercourse with?
How many times have you had sexual intercourse?
Was other people present when you had sexual intercourse?
Have you taken your clothes off in front of men before?
When you took your clothes off in front of a man, did you have sexual intercourse with him?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: Re: Just wrong!

Y'all are talking a lot about her playing strip poker and drinking, and therefore bearing some of the responsibility for whatever happened, when all the article says is that the guy's lawyers claim that's what she was doing.

I believe in straight shootin', but it's good to be sure of your aim.

Actually, we don't KNOW anything. We don't KNOW for certain that this whole thread isn't some tasteless April Fool joke although that seems unlikely.

Assuming that all the info that is included is correct, all we know is that she claims he raped her and he denied it and his lawyer said she was drinking and playing strp poker. We also know that he was kicked out of the AFA for other reasons and reinstated by somebody who outranked the AFA commander on the grounds that the other allegations were never proved.

It looks to me as if the commander wanted to sweep the whole thing under the rug and did so by kicking the guy out on some flimsy pretext but the guy didn't want to take it sitting down and protested, successfully. As for what his lawyer said, there was nothing said about her denying it and I can't help thinking he wouldn't make up such an outrageous claim without some substantiation.

As for whom is the injured party? She has gotten her commission and gone on with her career and is undergoing flight training. He was in limbo for years before being reinstated. I don't know who is is right here and who is wrong but one way or another, there was a miscarriage of justice.

 

[BlackSnake]

If the woman wasn't raped by this guy, the biggest losers are women in the Air Force that have been and that maybe raped.

 

[champagne1982]

The flaws in some of your arguments rest here:

• Some of you are inferring that the woman has no right to bring charges against this man because she can't prove she was raped. WTF? Since when does the burden of proof lay with the victim. That is the state's job and will be, until the statute of limitations runs out.
• Another problem I have with this, is, as has been so aptly stated by others, NO means NO, no matter when the word is spoken, period, end of story. There are no mitigating circumstances here. If consent is denied at any point, then you are no longer engaging in consensual sexual relations.

These are points of law. I do not have to argue the rightness of them.

 

[GodBlessTexas]

Man, this thing heated up since I left earlier! I agree with the "no means no," regardless of when it's said. That bit about saying yes then changing to no being B.S. is fuckin stupid. I don't care if, when, or how many times I say yes. Once I say no, whatever it is better fuckin stop.

Another problem I have is how can there ever be a good balance between making it easy for actual victims to receive justice and protecting innocent people who are accused? In my line of work, it's not uncommon to receive "anonymous" tips on our employees that they're stealing from the company or not working the hours they say they are or all sorts of other bad things. When the employee is confronted about it, he usually tells us that oh yeah, he just dumped his g/f and she's been out to get him. In other words, yes, there are women out there who will do or say anything if they have a vendetta.

I'm all for quick justice, but if I'm the innocent one being accused, I would thank God for the system being the way it is. So again, where's the balance? Is it better to lock away everybody who's accused, just to make sure you get them all? Or is it better to err on the side of caution and maybe miss a few bad ones in order to NOT lock up the innocent ones? I don't have an answer.

 

[BlackSnake]

The flaws in some of your arguments rest here:

• Some of you are inferring that the woman has no right to bring charges against this man because she can't prove she was raped. WTF? Since when does the burden of proof lay with the victim. That is the state's job and will be, until the statute of limitations runs out.
• Another problem I have with this, is, as has been so aptly stated by others, NO means NO, no matter when the word is spoken, period, end of story. There are no mitigating circumstances here. If consent is denied at any point, then you are no longer engaging in consensual sexual relations.

These are points of law. I do not have to argue the rightness of them.

Something keep telling me to shut the fuck up, but I just can't.

I just had a flash...sudden thought, if you will. "Don't! Stop! Why did you stop. I said don't stop."

"No? I didn't ask any questions."

The guy is innocent until proven guilty. Just because he has been accused doesn't mean that he is guilty. We have no way of knowing this based on the information given.

I for one, encourage any and every women who has been raped to report it. If he has done it to you, who else has he or will he do it to? Hopefully, no one you or I know, but where there's one victim there's sure to be another.

 

[KenJames]

Re: Re: Re: Just wrong!

Actually, we don't KNOW anything. We don't KNOW for certain that this whole thread isn't some tasteless April Fool joke although that seems unlikely.

Assuming that all the info that is included is correct, all we know is that she claims he raped her and he denied it and his lawyer said she was drinking and playing strp poker. We also know that he was kicked out of the AFA for other reasons and reinstated by somebody who outranked the AFA commander on the grounds that the other allegations were never proved.

It looks to me as if the commander wanted to sweep the whole thing under the rug and did so by kicking the guy out on some flimsy pretext but the guy didn't want to take it sitting down and protested, successfully. As for what his lawyer said, there was nothing said about her denying it and I can't help thinking he wouldn't make up such an outrageous claim without some substantiation.

As for whom is the injured party? She has gotten her commission and gone on with her career and is undergoing flight training. He was in limbo for years before being reinstated. I don't know who is is right here and who is wrong but one way or another, there was a miscarriage of justice.

I really doubt that ABSTRUSE is perpetuating an April Fools joke.

Although the article doesn't say she denied the drunken strip poker allegation, it doesn't say she confirmed it, either. If the case had come to trial and I was on the jury, I'd sure want to see some collaboration.

As for a lawyer making an outrageous claim without substantiation, I was a juror on a rape case and had to bite my lip during closing arguments to keep myself from asking the defense attorney, "What kind of fucking morons do you think we are?" When we got into deliberations, I learned several other jurors shared my sentiments.

I agree that the article essentially describes a "he said, she said" situation and that there was definitely a miscarriage of justice against someone, but I'm not sure who.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wrong!

I really doubt that ABSTRUSE is perpetuating an April Fools joke.

She's not. It's all over the news. Google the guy's name with cadet or Air Force Academy and you'll get everything from CNN to Bumpkin Times with the story.

 

[fille]

"Rodriguez has denied assaulting Ballas. His lawyers said she had been drinking heavily with Rodriguez and others the night of the alleged assault and had been involved in a game of strip poker before the alleged attack on Oct. 13, 2001."

So, obviously, she could not possibly have been assaulted. Everyone knows that if you get drunk and play strip poker, you are asking for it.

Sheesh.

 

[KenJames]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wrong!

She's not. It's all over the news. Google the guy's name with cadet or Air Force Academy and you'll get everything from CNN to Bumpkin Times with the story.

I was being ironic and understated, as I'm sure you've inferred.

 

[BlackSnake]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wrong!

She's not. It's all over the news. Google the guy's name with cadet or Air Force Academy and you'll get everything from CNN to Bumpkin Times with the story.

Lucky, is this the same story from 20/20? It's vague in my mind.

 

[BlackSnake]

"Rodriguez has denied assaulting Ballas. His lawyers said she had been drinking heavily with Rodriguez and others the night of the alleged assault and had been involved in a game of strip poker before the alleged attack on Oct. 13, 2001."

So, obviously, she could not possibly have been assaulted. Everyone knows that if you get drunk and play strip poker, you are asking for it.

Sheesh.

Question. When has anyone played strip poker sober?

 

[KenJames]

"Rodriguez has denied assaulting Ballas. His lawyers said she had been drinking heavily with Rodriguez and others the night of the alleged assault and had been involved in a game of strip poker before the alleged attack on Oct. 13, 2001."

So, obviously, she could not possibly have been assaulted. Everyone knows that if you get drunk and play strip poker, you are asking for it.

Sheesh.

Are you being sarcastic or serious? If a defense attorney says it, it must be true?

Have you ever wondered why the English pronounce lawyer as "liar?"

Edited to add
In rape cases, it's common practice to slime the victim. Is it any wonder that, even in this supposedly enlightened age, rape victims are reluctant to come forward?

 

[SlickTony]

On the other hand, there seems to be enough other incidents and circumstition (circumstance, I mean - weird Freudian slip of the day...) around that guy to make him unfit as an officer.

And I've heard that anybody who was ever on Ritalin or any of the other ADD drugs, even as a kid, he's automatically disqualified from the military; and anyone in the service who reports mental or emotional problems and seeks treatment for it is risking career suicide. Go figure.

(This is something that every parent of a kid who has ADD or an autism spectrum disorder has to look at. Fortunately, my son has no desire for a military career, even though his main interest, which is meteorology, would be useful in tactical situations).

It's despicable that a woman should say YES then change her mind and say NO.

Wait a goddam minute here, Sub. What if she says yes but then the guy gets rough when she gave no indication that she likes it that way, or just wants to perform some act which is painful or she just doesn't like?