A woman can be raped by a man misinterpreting something and making a mistake. That’s on him, but I would judge him far less harshly than someone who did it on purpose. It’s a genuine possibility in this case, and anyone who wants to drag his reputation immediately after his death has as much responsibility to acknowledge that as anyone celebrating his legacy and calling him a good man has to mention the incident, if not more, given the context of his having just died.
As for the others, go find my posts, I’ve pretty consistently been on the side of the women. I was pretty early calling for Franken to step down and had a lot of people I discuss politics with cuss me out, call me a traitor, call me weak, etc.
Do you have any evidence that Kobe raped other women and paid them off or are you literally just making up fictional rape allegations to throw at a man who just died and who just so happened to be a successful black man?
I’m guessing that last part triggers you because I have no reason to think you’re racist. That’s exactly the point. It was an inappropriate accusation to make with no evidence, just like it was inappropriate to accuse Kobe of raping other women with literally no evidence.
And those choke marks on her throat and other injuries consistent with rape are just an unfortunate coincidence. And telling the cops they didn’t have sexual relations until it was clear that they had biological evidence was just a little white lie. And it was kind of unfortunate that they slut shamed her in court and outed her real name, but these are just things you have to do after unfortunately getting caught up in a violent misunderstanding.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“[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?
