Low key accusing me of rape? You are such a fucking piece of shit. Fuck you, asshole.
[quote=“Jbro, post:87, topic:1011, full:true”]
It was all a big misunderstanding.
And those choke marks on her throat and other injuries consistent with rape are just an unfortunate coincidence.[/quote]
They don’t rule out miscommunication.
Already said that was bad, but it is far from proving rape.
I already said they shouldn’t have outed her name. The fact that she had sex with three men in three days or whatever was obviously relevant in court, given that it opened the possibility that the injuries were not caused by him. That should have been brought up without shaming her, but it had to come out.
A bunch of people here have decided that Kobe Bryant is 100% a rapist and there’s no room for any other possibility, but the publicly available facts make it clear that there is a range of possibilities.
I literally followed it up by making it clear that I was doing that to make a point, not to call you racist. I literally said it would be inappropriate to call you racist.
Obviously what was appropriate was to call for your permaban months ago, because you’re a shitty poster who habitually crosses the line. The fact that this community still embraces you should be an embarrassment to every regular here. But congrats, I’ll be peacing out again soon and it’ll be another feather in your cap.
He admitted after the fact (and after she agreed to stop cooperating with police) that from her perspective she had not consented. Sex without consent from both parties has a name for it. I think it’s called, rape.
2 Likes
Nothing you posted made anything I said not true. Pretty fucking shady to imply that it does.
Key words: from her perspective.
So in my exact example, one person says “Don’t! Stop!” and the other person thinks they said “Don’t stop!” now you have a miscommunication that leads to her believing she was raped and him believing she was telling him to keep going. I don’t know what the law says about that exact scenario, but morally I’m certainly going to be more judgmental of someone who does it on purpose than of someone who thought they were being encouraged to keep going, whose transgression was not stopping to clarify.
If you can’t see a difference between those two acts, I don’t know what to tell you.
The bottom line is that in the Kobe case we don’t know exactly what happened, and we don’t know exactly how things were worded. Thus, it’s possible that there was a miscommunication and that his apology acknowledged it and apologized for it and acknowledged that she experienced something terrible. It’s also possible he’s an asshole who raped her and bought his way out of it. Those are the two likely scenarios, and there are a couple of very unlikely scenarios as well. We will likely never know exactly what happened, and should evaluate his character in that light.
My post was very clear. Your post took each of the facts and put it in the worst possible light for Kobe and wrote it in a way that would be interpreted as the most extreme possibility given what we know.
You can take some facts and write them in a way that makes it look like he absolutely had to have done it, and you can take some facts and write them in a way that makes it look very unlikely that he did it. To do either is irresponsible and shady.
All I did was point that out.
That’s just a little foreplay.
Very informative as to what happened.
The thing is. They were all facts. They don’t need any light shed on them. They stand on their own.
On the other hand you need 20 paragraphs to maybe, possibly, explain, how it might be that bad, but it also might not be that bad. Who knows.
1 Like
Which is a big part of why if there was a misunderstanding, I put the blame for the misunderstanding on him:
This is why communication is essential and why you should be extra cautious with new partners and when doing things beyond the norm.
No, this is a fact:
There were three spots of her blood on his shirt, the amount of blood and the size of the spots is undisclosed.
This is shedding a specific light on a fact:
I could state the same four facts you did, without changing the facts, and make them look good for him. It would be irresponsible to do so, but it would literally take 15 seconds and be easy. You have an agenda with how you’re posting the facts, period.
Like, the facts in a neutral light in which we just seek the truth make it look like he did something bad, but we don’t know exactly what. Did he think he had consent and he didn’t, and fail to be clear about it? Did he rape her with intent? We will never know.
That’s where the facts leave it.
BTW - I think that is wrong. But if you can find a legit source that confirms this, I’ll check it out. She admitted to sex with one partner 4 or 5 days before. And anyway, it doesn’t matter if she had consensual sex and how many times. But still I think that “3 people in 3 days” was all part of the slut shaming campaign.
Yeah. I’m on that heinous “dont choke and rape teenage girls” agenda.
Gtfo dude. This is really really gross and I don’t understand what you are doing or why.
2 Likes
Calling out people who are skewing facts and making presumptions of guilt in a case in which we can’t be 100% sure about, not even close to 100%. Sorry if it’s not enough for some to say, “He did a bad thing and we will never know to what degree he was bad, and we should thus consider both possibilities of potential badness in remembering him.”
There are a range of possibilities in this case, that’s all I’m saying. You could use the same argument to acquit every rapist, and you could also use the counter argument to convict every rapist. Neither would be the right thing to do. Given the nature of sex, with it mostly occurring privately between two people, it’s obviously extremely hard to prosecute sex crimes and that’s tragic and we should try to improve that. But we shouldn’t ignore the reality of certain specific situations in which there was a very significant possibility of a misunderstanding.
This is a direct quote from the medical examiner:
“[The nurse] stated that there were several lacerations to the victim’s posterior fourchette or vaginal area, and two of those lacerations were approximately one centimeter in length,” testified Det. Winters. “And there were many, I believe, 2 millimeter lacerations. Too many to count… [The nurse] stated that the injuries were consistent with penetrating genital trauma. That it’s not consistent with consensual sex.”
Det. Winters further stated that the nurse told him the vaginal injuries had most likely occurred within “24 hours,” and that the accuser had “a small bruise on her left jaw line.” Also, that examiners had found “blood excretions” on Bryant’s T-shirt “to about the waistline.” The blood, testified Det. Winters, had “the same DNA profile as the victim in this case.”
I’ve read several different articles today and saw nothing about “3 spots”. So be careful about impugning Rugby’s reputation. Even if there were just 3 spots, if he read similar sources that I did he would never know.
But I do question where the “3 little spots” reference came from?
I don’t post that often but have to agree with others cuse and I like you. Just say you were mistaken and let’s move on.
Donated $100. Thanks for sharing.
4 Likes
It’s possible that I got this wrong and it was two in two days. I wasn’t 100% sure, which is why I said “or whatever.” I find stuff saying that she likely had sex with someone else in the 15 hours between leaving his room and getting the medical exam, but also stuff saying that she had sex with someone else in the week before the attack. So it may be two in two days and three in the week, and I mixed it up. Or the one before was just the defense team’s accusation, or the one before and the one after are the same partner.
I agree that it doesn’t matter if she had consensual sex or how many times in terms of judging her character as an accuser who is going to testify or as a person. It does matter in terms of the evidence that was collected. As I’ve already said, Kobe’s defense team presented a lot of this in a way that was intended to shame her, her name should not have been made public, etc… His role in that is bad, and at the very least he had to sign off on it.
You’re doing it again. She was 19 and he was 24, those are facts without skew.
I think we should acknowledge the range of possibilities that the facts dictate, accept that there are probabilities to assign to each one, and evaluate him accordingly. I think there’s a massive difference, in terms of his character, between not understanding that she revoked consent and understanding it and doing it anyway. I think to judge someone as if it’s 100% certain that the absolute worst case scenario is what happened is wrong when it’s nowhere near 100% certain.
That’s what I’m doing and why.
On the other hand, I have a history of erring farther to the other side in most of these cases, especially Franken. I don’t think saying, “consider the possibility that what he did wrong is not the most extreme thing, but rather this other bad thing,” speaks to a blind spot. I think it speaks to reading the facts and reacting accordingly.
Like to put this all another way, I think someone can be redeemable if they misunderstood whether or not consent was given. That’s one of those cases where the mistake on his part is unfortunately far less extreme than the consequences she experienced as a result. I don’t think he should be judged based on what she experienced, but rather based on his own character and what he did. So if we all got the full knowledge of what happened and that’s what it was, I’d say that he handled it reasonably well in terms of apologizing and doing the best he could to be better moving forward, and I’d say we shouldn’t consider him a bad person. On the other hand I’d say the way they shamed her was wrong, and he should be held accountable for his role in that.
On the other hand, if he knew she revoked consent and just flat out violently raped her… if that was his intent… That’s irredeemable. He’s an evil person. I don’t think we should assume that about someone without a high level of certainty, and I don’t think we have a high enough level of certainty in this case to assume it.
As a result, the reality that we live in is that Kobe Bryant might be the guy who made a terrible mistake, was held responsible, and did his best going forward and we should judge the mistake to a degree, but that degree should fall short of judging his overall character during his 41 years on earth. He also might be the guy who was evil and did a terrible thing, and shouldn’t be celebrated at all. But we don’t really know, so we have to consider both possibilities in remembering him and in his legacy. To consider either to be 100% the way it was is just not following the facts that are publicly available.
Wikipedia says “three small stains of blood.”
The bottom line is that to say there was she bled so much that it got on his shirt when we simply don’t know how much blood there was is a mischaracterization of what we know.
Nah, I mean we can move on and I don’t need to keep arguing about it, but read about this and the facts are not clear enough to know exactly what happened. To call him a rapist is wrong, to call him innocent is wrong.
I’m currently arguing with a friend who’s a big Kobe fan who thinks I’m nuts to think there’s any chance he did it or that there was even a misunderstanding. She’s obviously biased, but still, when I’ve got people coming at me telling me I’m way wrong because he clearly raped her and that I’m way wrong because there’s no chance he did the slightest thing wrong, it makes me think that it’s pretty clear that I’m right that there are a range of possibilities and that we’ll never know.