haha, wow - personally attacked because I defended GA Rep. Franklin

[RileyE104]

My comment:


How can a person who claims they have been abused be legally considered a victim until the events they claim have been proven? What if the accuser is disproven (to an obvious extent) in a court of law? Does that mean that they went from victim to non-victim? NO, because they started off as an ACCUSER. In America, there's this little thing called "innocent until proven guilty" - if the accuser automatically starts off as a victim, that creates a bias where the accused is automatically viewed as a wrongdoer; how can that ensure the accused a fair trial? It baffles me how someone could find such offense in being legally referred to as an "accuser" if you accuse someone of a crime. Sure, you can consider yourself a victim if you know you have been victimized, but, in the LEGAL world, you have to have tangible proof. ---- There is nothing anti-woman about this, so all of you out there attacking Rep. Franklin by throwing insults like that at him should stop your trolling.


The message I received from a crazy woman:


You have no business commenting on political issues with your obviously limited understanding of the world. Pizza Hut? You graduated HS last year and you've only had ONE job? If you understood the issues here you wouldn't be so quick to defend Franklin's actions. If the word "victim" is replaced by "accuser" in Rape cases, why not do the same in Assault cases, or Burglary cases? Or Auto Accidents? I'll tell you why, because Republicans are misogynist assholes who want people like your wife to suffer for their ignorance. What do you know? How to knock up your girlfriend in High School? Leave political debate to those who have done more than forget to wear a condom and get fired from pizza joints.


My reply to her:


First of all, you don't know me and you have no place nor reason to criticize or comment on my life simply because I chose to express my freedom of speech and engage in discussion of an issue. I find your personal attacks on me despicable, repulsive and embarrassing to your character and intellect. I am simply doing what every human has the right to do - there is no such thing as a requirement needed to express opinion and engage in debate.

Secondly, by attacking me because of my view on an issue, you have already proven that you are not as wise and moral as you presume yourself to be. Instead of making this personal, you could have simply presented your side of the argument about why I am wrong. If you want to debate my philosophical beliefs, that's ok. But if you're going to continue talking about things that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, this will be the only reply you get back from me.

What Rep. Franklin is proposing is nothing crazy as you and others have made it out to be. He is simply declaring that BEFORE the case has been tried, the person who claims to have been abused (or raped) be LEGALLY referred to as an accuser; not a victim - just as with any other case. I don't know where you get the idea that when a person accuses another person of wrongdoing they should automatically be viewed as a victim and the accused as guilty. That is precisely why we have a legal system in this country; so those who are guilty can be officially declared as such. Everyone in this country is innocent until proven guilty, no matter the magnitude of the crime they are accused of. If a person claims to have been abused, I understand that they are potential victims, as does Rep. Franklin, but if that accuser wants to ruin another person's life over such claims, they are going to have to provide proof in the atmosphere of a fair trial, not a trial where the accused is already presumed as a wrongdoer.



If anyone cares to join the debate, I posted my comment @ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=25815598690 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=25815598690)which is a page for Rep. Franklin's supporters (now a center for trolls who wish to attack him).

Or you can message the woman who attacked me. :)
hxxp://www.facebook.com/gypsyzingaro

Just don't include my name or any details about me in the message, I don't want this crazy bitch thinking I told people to message her. :p

[Philhelm]

My prediction is that the woman is fat...

Edit: No picture of her, so she's definitely a deuce, deuce and a half, at the very least.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How quickly people forget the Duke saga. I guess it's all well and good to ruin a litany of young persons lives because of accusations and false allegations. Of course, they were 'victims'. No need for a trial, just accuse away. You hate that person? Accuse them of rape. You want to get ahead of another business competitor? Accuse them of rape. No one should be legally labled as a victim until someone has been proven guilty by a trial of their peers. Shall we throw out habeus corpus while we are at it?

[Zatch]

All your Facebook privacy settings should be set to friends only before you get in a debate with the Bobby Franklin lynch mob.

[specsaregood]

Accuse them of rape. No one should be legally labled as a victim until someone has been proven guilty by a trial of their peers. Shall we throw out habeus corpus while we are at it?
So if a person is quite obviously raped, but you never find their attacker or manage to convict somebody they should never be considered a "victim"?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So if a person is quite obviously raped, but you never find their attacker or manage to convict somebody they should never be considered a "victim"?

Not legally. I have no qualms with people who have experienced rape to call themselves victims, but court proceedings and the due process of justice requires a blindness to the alleged offenses and with a bias towards the accused. Do you disagree?

You act like there has never been a false allegation of rape. Why should I automatically be considered guilty because someone has alleged an offense against me? The moment you bestow the title of victim onto someone before due process can be administered you have clearly slanted the bias away from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. I quite like the old English Common Law, but perhaps I am 'old school' and I have no heart or some such non-sense.

[specsaregood]

Not legally.

So unless somebody is convicted of committing a crime, then there is no crime? So people that were murdered, but the murderer never caught....they aren't murder victims?

[Zatch]

So unless somebody is convicted of committing a crime, then there is no crime? So people that were murdered, but the murderer never caught....they aren't murder victims?

The word accuser doesn't imply a crime hasn't occurred.

[specsaregood]

The word accuser doesn't imply a crime hasn't occurred.
It does a wrong-doing.

Are you guys only making this argument in very specific cases where somebody has accused a specific person of the act? Rather than reporting oneself as the victim of an act?

[RileyE104]

All your Facebook privacy settings should be set to friends only before you get in a debate with the Bobby Franklin lynch mob.

I thought they were but apparently it reset when they switched me to the new profile.

I fixed it about 10 minutes ago so I'm good again. :)

[Zatch]

Huffington Post is hypocritical. They demonized Bobby Franklin for his bill but a google search reveals they have repeatedly used the word accuser to refer to alleged rape victims:

http://www.google.com/search?q=rape+accuser+site:huffingtonpost.com&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=

[dannno]

My prediction is that the woman is fat...

Edit: No picture of her, so she's definitely a deuce, deuce and a half, at the very least.

Very possible. There's also a chance she's been victimized. Apparently a lot of women who are victimized or have bad sexual experiences with men and feel like prey will subconsciously get fat to make themselves less attractive. That's not why all women are fat, it's just a percentage, but it is more common than we might think.

[dannno]

It does a wrong-doing.

Are you guys only making this argument in very specific cases where somebody has accused a specific person of the act? Rather than reporting oneself as the victim of an act?

If you get robbed, you are a victim, but in a legal sense, you are the accuser of the robber.

Some how this changes if you are robbed sexually, and this change creates a bias.

[RileyE104]

If you get robbed, you are a victim, but in a legal sense, you are the accuser of the robber.

Some how this changes if you are robbed sexually, and this change creates a bias.

Exactly. I don't see how people can't understand this.

Things are DIFFERENT in the legal system.

For instance, LHO was never convicted for the assassination of JFK, therefore he is legally innocent.

In our minds however, many people declare him to be guilty.

This same scenario can apply to people who accuse others of abuse. Until the accused person is convicted, they are legally innocent.

[specsaregood]

Exactly. I don't see how people can't understand this.
Things are DIFFERENT in the legal system.

The argument that somebody can't be a victim unless a perpetrator is caught and convicted is simply stupid.

[RileyE104]

The argument that somebody can't be a victim unless a perpetrator is caught and convicted is simply stupid.

They CAN be a victim, JUST NOT LEGALLY.

If you want it official, if you want someone to be PUNISHED for victimizing you, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW.


How would you like someone to accuse you of something and then when you get to court, instead of it being defendant vs plaintiff, it's VICTIM vs WRONGDOER.

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that a fair trial can come from such a biased environment?





EXAMPLE:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8krczNKABA&feature=feedu

In the opinion of people like you, Julian Assange is a RAPIST and his accuser is NOT an accuser, but a VICTIM.
Now, send Mr. Assange to the court room! :eek:

[hugolp]

So if a person is quite obviously raped, but you never find their attacker or manage to convict somebody they should never be considered a "victim"?

The thing with rape is that unfortunately very often its hard to tell. The physical signs you get from rape are in most cases the same you get from rough consensual sex. The only cases where its clear there has been a rape is if there is audio or video recordings or something like that. So in a big part of the cases its impossible to tell if there has been or not a rape. That is why you need to go to court. So its not possible to autmatically determine if the the acuser is a victim or not.

When there has been a murder, you now the murdered is a victim for sure, even if you dont know the murderer.

Do you see the difference?

[specsaregood]

When there has been a murder, you now the murdered is a victim for sure, even if you dont know the murderer.

Do you see the difference?

No I don't see a difference. By your definition, a woman walking down the street that is raped and the rapist is never caught will never be a "victim". Hell, there could even be a video of the incident, but still no victim.

[nobody's_hero]

Specs, no one is saying that if you are actually raped, then you are not a victim.

But courts have to operate on a presumption of innocence. It is one of the few (barely) remaining pillars of our justice system, at least, one that is as close to neutrality as humanity has been able to develop. But the kicker is, it isn't even supposed to be neutral. If our court system worked anything like it did 200 years ago, the odds would actually be stacked against those who have been raped.

William Blackstone, prominent British lawyer often admired during colonial times, suggested that it is better that ten guilty persons go free, rather than one innocent be wrongly convicted. Benjamin Franklin is sometimes credited with expanding this ratio to 100:1. I can understand the importance of this ratio now, but at one point, I took it for granted. That was back when I was a Bush supporter and thought (naively) that people arrested in the "war on terror" had no rights. I couldn't for the life of me understand why anyone would want those 'ragheads' to be given the benefit of the presumption of innocence. But things get out of hand when you give the government room to wiggle on this issue. The burden of proof always rests with the accuser in a court of law (unless the government itself is the accuser, unfortunately, because it seems to take shortcuts).

Riley pointed out a very good example of the concept Bobby Franklin is trying to get across, with Julian Assange. I guess having fallen for it before, it's easy for me to see now how labels can drastically affect the outcomes in our justice system, and of public perception.

Label someone an 'enemy combatant' or 'traitor' and few people will care if their rights are unprotected.

But take another example which shows the hypocrisy of the liberals posting on Franklin's facebook page:

When Nidal Hasan committed the Fort Hood massacre, he did so in broad daylight with no shortage of witnesses and victims. HOWEVER, one of the first things Obama said (which is one of the RARE times he ever says something I could agree with), is that Hassan would be given a fair trial in accordance with our system of justice (now, there's a challenge). Few will dare say that Hasan did not commit that massacre, or that there were no victims, but in a court of law, he has to be presumed innocent until found guilty (or not guilty).

(I wonder, whatever happened to him, anyway?)

[specsaregood]

Specs, no one is saying that if you are actually raped, then you are not a victim.

But courts have to operate on a presumption of innocence. It is one of the few (barely) remaining pillars of our justice system, at least, one that is as close to neutrality as humanity has been able to develop. But the kicker is, it isn't even supposed to be neutral. If our court system worked anything like it did 200 years ago, the odds would actually be stacked against those who have been raped.

I understand what you are getting at, but I think my example of a murder "victim" holds then.
They are not a "victim" of murder until the murderer is caught and convicted, yes?

[RileyE104]

No I don't see a difference. By your definition, a woman walking down the street that is raped and the rapist is never caught will never be a "victim". Hell, there could even be a video of the incident, but still no victim.


I understand what you are getting at, but I think my example of a murder "victim" holds then.
They are not a "victim" of murder until the murderer is caught and convicted, yes?

Why have you refused to answer my reply? Is it because you can't poke holes in the truth?





The argument that somebody can't be a victim unless a perpetrator is caught and convicted is simply stupid.

They CAN be a victim, JUST NOT LEGALLY.

If you want it official, if you want someone to be PUNISHED for victimizing you, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW.


How would you like someone to accuse you of something and then when you get to court, instead of it being defendant vs plaintiff, it's VICTIM vs WRONGDOER.

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that a fair trial can come from such a biased environment?





EXAMPLE:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8krczNKABA&feature=feedu

In the opinion of people like you, Julian Assange is a RAPIST and his accuser is NOT an accuser, but a VICTIM.
Now, send Mr. Assange to the court room! :eek:

[specsaregood]

Why have you refused to answer my reply? Is it because you can't poke holes in the truth?

No, I answered it via other posts.
I get it, if you want things to be fair, then nobody should be considered a "victim" until somebody is convicted of a crime.
But this does not apply just to rape cases, but ALL CASES. ie: no murder victims, no fraud victims, no victims of assault, etc.

[RileyE104]

No, I answered it via other posts.
I get it, if you want things to be fair, then nobody should be considered a "victim" until somebody is convicted of a crime.
But this does not apply just to rape cases, but ALL CASES. ie: no murder victims, no fraud victims, no victims of assault, etc.

First of all, if you're murdered then you are obviously a victim - you don't need to offer up proof of that, so it isn't a good comparison.

Secondly, who is considered a victim prior to their claims being confirmed?

If I accuse you of stealing from me or assaulting me, am I automatically a victim in the eyes of the law?

No, I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I have indeed been victimized.

Simply making a claim doesn't mean I am a victim.


To automatically label an accuser as a victim means the accused is automatically labeled as guilty of victimization.

That is very, very WRONG.

It turns the legal system on its head where instead of being innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Sadly, this is the same tactic that the IRS uses.

[brandon]

So why are all these forever alone heffers getting on this guys case now? What liberal women's website set off the alarms?

[Zatch]

So why are all these forever alone heffers getting on this guys case now? What liberal women's website set off the alarms?

Huff Post, Alternet, Raw Story and others

[nobody's_hero]

They are not a "victim" of murder until the murderer is caught and convicted, yes?

As far as the justice system is concerned, that would be the case.

http://www.threedonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Blind-Justice.jpg

There are 'court findings' and then there is 'what actually happened.' The goal is to get those two to match up as much as possible while maintaining neutrality.

You go to court to make your case as to what actually happened.

But courts don't get to decide, beforehand, what actually happened.

[edit: I agree with your more recent comment about how this should apply to all criminal situations/cases, not just rape. But our justice system has been slipping down the gutter for a long time now, and mischaracterizing labels written into our laws isn't even the worst of it]