It's About Time....

[sag38]

Even on a college campus one should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/1...coming-under-fire-from-judges/ ?intcmp=hplnws

 

[wpe3bql]

Unfortunately, most public media outlets--and Fox News Channel (FNC), for all its professed adherence to a person's or groups' [Be they liberal, centrist, or any degree of so-called conservative] constitutionally-protected rights to free speech, etc., is no better than, say MSNBC, CNN Public Radio/TV, or even Aljhazeera is at the other end of the political spectrum--is about the worse of all the 24-hour news channels we currently have.

I watch FNC not because it's so disinterested in its reporting--which it isn't, but, because when I have some time to even watch TV, it's either FNC or some vapid talk show, or some ungodly soap opera, or some Jerry Springer-type so-called reality[?] show that usually winds up in some free-for-all, WWE-type, throw-all-the-chairs-or-other-stage-props-at-your-spouse show that you know is already staged because the host has either memorized his comments or refers to his cue cards to edge on the already-bashing guests [As if these guests 'just happened to show up for today's show'!:smilewinkgrin:.

IMHO, a class of 6th graders could probably do better at news reporting than most of what FNC does. In fact, they'd probably do better! :thumbsup:

Should FNC just happen to pre-judge these people who they've already tried, convicted & declared guilty by its so-called judicial experts--who've not spent a millisecond personally seated in the media's visitors gallery in that particular courtroom--it might slip in a 3-second correction at the end of some long-winded, commercial-filled program, but that's it....case dismissed! "Fair and Balanced," my foot!:BangHead:

Yes, today's afternoon TV programming has really come a long way from how it was back in the 1950's, hasn't it? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[sag38]

Unfortunately, most public media outlets--and Fox News Channel (FNC), for all its professed adherence to a person's or groups' [Be they liberal, centrist, or any degree of so-called conservative] constitutionally-protected rights to free speech, etc., is no better than, say MSNBC, CNN Public Radio/TV, or even Aljhazeera is at the other end of the political spectrum--is about the worse of all the 24-hour news channels we currently have.

I watch FNC not because it's so disinterested in its reporting--which it isn't, but, because when I have some time to even watch TV, it's either FNC or some vapid talk show, or some ungodly soap opera, or some Jerry Springer-type so-called reality[?] show that usually winds up in some free-for-all, WWE-type, throw-all-the-chairs-or-other-stage-props-at-your-spouse show that you know is already staged because the host has either memorized his comments or refers to his cue cards to edge on the already-bashing guests [As if these guests 'just happened to show up for today's show'!:smilewinkgrin:.

IMHO, a class of 6th graders could probably do better at news reporting than most of what FNC does. In fact, they'd probably do better! :thumbsup:

Should FNC just happen to pre-judge these people who they've already tried, convicted & declared guilty by its so-called judicial experts--who've not spent a millisecond personally seated in the media's visitors gallery in that particular courtroom--it might slip in a 3-second correction at the end of some long-winded, commercial-filled program, but that's it....case dismissed! "Fair and Balanced," my foot!:BangHead:

Yes, today's afternoon TV programming has really come a long way from how it was back in the 1950's, hasn't it? :smilewinkgrin:

What does this have to do with the op? Why not address the subject rather than giving a diatribe? Young men have been denied due process and the judicial system is agreeing with them. It is about time. I really don't care if the source of the info is FOX or MSNBC.

 

[wpe3bql]

What does this have to do with the op? Why not address the subject rather than giving a diatribe? Young men have been denied due process and the judicial system is agreeing with them. It is about time. I really don't care if the source of the info is FOX or MSNBC.

Sag38,

I posted what I did because there are some folks that blindly take everything that's reported on FNC or MSNBC or whatever their TV is glued to as absolute truth and anyone else who dares disagree with that person's boob-tube god is close to being considered a heretic in their minds.

I've noticed this happening not only here on BB, but on other internet-based forums, even on so-called "Christian" Facebook groups. I don't know why people do this, but I tend to look at this sort of thing with some degree of suspicion. Religious TV programs are the worse kinds of perpetrators. I know of some preachers who'll stop at nothing to bleed aged people who might be slipping into the beginning stages of dementia dry of what little savings they may have by airing these devious guilt trips these people dutifully watch every week.

My point is that simply because FNC or MSNBC or whatever news channel some people seem to equate with their Bible tells us something about a certain person or group or incident doesn't mean that outlet has told the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.

If I'm about to devote my time or my effort or my money on someone or something, I not about to jump at the first person or group or thing that comes my way. If I were to purchase, say, a used house, you can guarantee that I'll not buy it sight unseen just because some realtor tells me it's in tip-top condition. Maybe I want to purchase a car. I'm not that immature to plop down my money before I look under its hood or test drive it. Perhaps I want to invest in a company's stock. Don't you think I'd want to know if its products and/or services are such that there seems to be at least some chance of performing well in the stock market?

I prefer to see if there's something a news channel either missed or misinterpreted when it airs an item. I don't trust FNC or any other of the news outlets eyes unseen & words unspoken. Some preachers cite their own little TV news gods as if it came from the Bible & preach what the person on his boob-tube said as if it came directly from God Himself!

If I'm about to spend lots of $$$ on some medications for some ailment I have, I'd at least want to know why my doctor want me to take it, wouldn't you?

That's the reason I posted what you refer as mere diatribe. You may think it's bunk, but I don't.

Have a nice day sag38, really! :wavey:

 

[sag38]

Again, what does this have to do with the op? Unless you have had your head in the sand, young men accused of crimes on college campuses have been declared guilty without being given even a remote chance at a defense. They are accused, declared guilty, and sent packing by what amounts to kangaroo courts. Now, if you want to discuss the virtues of various news outlets then please start your own thread. Thank you.

 

[wpe3bql]

Unless you have had your head in the sand, young men accused of crimes on college campuses have been declared guilty without being given even a remote chance at a defense. They are accused, declared guilty, and sent packing by what amounts to kangaroo courts.

Sorry to disappoint you sag38, but contrary to what to you've determined to be the location of my head, it has most definitely NOT been where you seem to infer it's located.

In the city in which I live there has been for almost 2 years now a weekly--and sometimes a daily--press & local media broadcast coverage of a rape that occurred on one of our city's rather well-known college campuses.

It's certain that the rape took place--both the victim & the perpetrator have publicly admitted to that--what the courts will decide regarding the perpetrator's punishment will be is anybody's guess at this point.

After the preliminary court proceedings had already taken place, it was discovered that one of the jurists who was scheduled to be part of the defense side of the jury had perjured herself when a private investigative finding revealed that this juror had indeed been the subject of both mental & sexual abuse.

That jurist finally admitted to the fact that she had indeed been the victim of the above-mentioned abuse. As a result, she was not only dismissed from this case, but also fined for perjuring herself because she failed to correctly answer the question of whether she'd ever been the subject of any kind of abuse in the past.

She first said that she was never abused, and thus sat in the jury box during several weeks of both sides' opening remarks--a clear violation of the rules that govern who can & who cannot sit on a jury in a case such as this.

This single incident caused the entire trial to be delayed for several weeks as both the press & local broadcast media kept on using images of both the rapist and his victim--planting subconscious ideas in the public's minds that the perpetrator was not only guilty, but also he now should be punished even more severely than perhaps he should have been in the first place.

It's one thing to be guilty of a crime--which he probably is--but quite another thing to be punished more severely than he should be due to the fact that the local media keeps on casting the perpetrator in an even darker light than he needs to be placed.

Moreover, once the trial resumes, his defense attorneys are going to plead that a change of venue is now what they will seek, thus further delaying the trial even more. Thus giving the local media more time to disparage the defendant even more.

It's a vicious cycle for the defendant. Yes he's guilty and deserves his rightful punishment, but not the additional punishment the local media is determined to demand for the defendant.

So, sag38, I have NOT had my head in the sand as you contend I have!

Now it's in your court to prove that you are right in stating that my head has been in the sand all of the time over this situation--a situation that is very much pertinent to the OP, whether you choose to believe it or not!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The problem of campus assaults on women is well known. Also, well known is the way innocent men have been targeted, smeared and their academic careers ended without proof. This hasn't happened in a court of law; it's happened in campus administrative hearings which have bordered on Star Chamber affairs.

Even on a college campus one should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/1...coming-under-fire-from-judges/ ?intcmp=hplnws

 

[Revmitchell]

A single anecdote is not evidence of anything other than that one single event. However, here is some actual evidence.


http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18596/


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...een-raped-on-college-campuses/article/2551980


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/16/1-in-5-data-and-the-debate-about-campus-rape


Also, the word Rape is often used but the studies, as worthless as they have been, include all sexual assaults. Do not be misled into assuming a sexual assault means a rape. According to the "Womanshealth" website sexual assault can include something as simple as something verbal.

What we need on campuses is no rapes. It is not helpful to exaggerate the number of claims, find innocent people guilty, or expand definitions so broad that actual rape is diminished.

 

[sag38]

I did not say your head was in the sand. Did you miss the word "unless?"

 

[sag38]

Thank Mitch and Squire for actually addressing the op.

 

[Scarlett O.]

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the prosecution. When we put the burden of proof of innocence on the defendant, that's a bad thing in my opinion - in any case.

The problem with high school/college rape and sexual assaults is that many times alcohol and date rape drugs are involved. For those young women who were legitimately raped or sexually assaulted while unconscious, they don't report it until later - if at all. By then it's too late for evidence. It just a he said-she said thing.

The root of the problem lies in the fact that these young people are not ready for sex. I know, I know, some people marry at age 18 and live long lives together. But these young people today - in a sex-obsessed culture - are NOT ready for the mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of meaningless and uncommitted sex with unmarried partners.

A man's brain and a woman's brain processes information and experiences differently. And not just sex - but many things. It's because our brains are literally different in many regards.

The church needs to talk about this more with young people. Saying, "No fornicating" isn't enough. Parents need to talk about this more, college campuses need to talk about this more, and it should be a comfortable conversation and not a hidden one.

These are people's lives. Women -who may have been literally raped but who have no evidence because they wait too late to even understand it all let alone report it.

And young men - who don't understand any of this or who may be blamed unwarrantedly.

We should never demand the defendant to shoulder the burden of proof of his innocence. He may have to defend himself against details and evidence and he may HAVE proof of his innocence, but the burden of proof of innocence is not his to bear.

And we should not demand that young women bear the burden of responsibility - even if she cannot prove the rape. I know of one poster on the BB who believes that a young woman going to a party or to a young man's dorm should know that she MIGHT be drugged and raped, so it is her fault for the most part if something happens without her consent or knowledge.

This is a serious problem on our college campuses.

TOTALLY unsupervised young people who think that they are ready for the perverted view of an adult world and are not.

 

[sag38]

I agree with all you said Scarlett. When I was attending OBC at Aberdeen Proving Grounds there was a get together in one of the BOQ rooms one night. One of the young ladies got drunk. My friend, who was good looking, who did not drink, attended the get together and she was all over him. I watched as she literally drug him out of the room back to her room. Come to find out, she was engaged. And, from that point on she hated my friend. Her friends hated him. They suggested that he took advantage of her. No, he did not. She literally threw herself at him. That was in 1989. In today's university and military environment he could easily be accused of ra*e and punished even though he did nothing wrong. (I am not addressing the sinfulness his/her actions.) At least the courts are recognizing that the accused has the right to a rigorous defense.

I can understand a victim having to relive the trauma in a hearing but the accused cannot be denied his or her rights simply because the victim may be terribly uncomfortable reliving the circumstances and enduring the pressure of cross examination. Colleges have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in their quest to prevent rape.

 

[Revmitchell]

Once a rape has occurred, especially on a college campus, it is very difficult to prove. The truth is there is no good fix for that. Since it is true that there is no good fix for that (and any number of other reasons) both sexes have to act in preventative ways prior to getting into any situation where the girl could actually be raped and the guy could be falsely accused.

The key here in moving forward is prudence and wisdom prior to anything happening. Women should never be blamed for being forced to have sex. Men should never be blamed for forcing someone when in fact it was consensual. In either case the injustices are equal.

What needs to be addressed is the behavior and actions that put both of them in situations where these injustices could occur. That is where the remedy lies.

If we are going to wait around for a resolution to absolute determination of whether the sex was actually consensual or not it ain't going to happen. Ever.