[Glock]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, feminist legal scholars are arguing that a male defendant should not be able to use in a sexual assault or abuse trial a female accuser's history of lying in documents that require a certification of truthfulness under penalty of perjury -- such as loan documents.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archiv...lence.html

Why don't we cut to the chase and simply give feminists the absolute power to lock up any man they want to in their complete discretion.

[vinman]

As a second class citizen you have no rights that a 1st class citizen has to respect. It was like this for blacks, poor whites, and Native Americans in the U.S. for generations. Now the 2nd class citizens in the western world are males in general.

[MrLemon]

(02-18-2014 10:34 AM)vinman Wrote:  

As a second class citizen you have no rights that a 1st class citizen has to respect. It was like this for blacks, poor whites, and Native Americans in the U.S. for generations. Now the 2nd class citizens in the western world are males in general.

This is just a continuation of rich white women's long term goal. They've always been in charge. They've always been the powers behind everything. White women were the ones clamoring for suppression of blacks, poor whites, and Native Americans. Rich white women have been the ones getting the money all along from all exploitation of people and resources.

Now, having gotten exactly the world they want...one in which everybody else is subservient to them...rich white women are now bumping off the men that have been doing their dirty work all these years.

[Suits]

(02-18-2014 11:42 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:34 AM)vinman Wrote:  

As a second class citizen you have no rights that a 1st class citizen has to respect. It was like this for blacks, poor whites, and Native Americans in the U.S. for generations. Now the 2nd class citizens in the western world are males in general.

This is just a continuation of rich white women's long term goal. They've always been in charge. They've always been the powers behind everything. White women were the ones clamoring for suppression of blacks, poor whites, and Native Americans. Rich white women have been the ones getting the money all along from all exploitation of people and resources.

Now, having gotten exactly the world they want...one in which everybody else is subservient to them...rich white women are now bumping off the men that have been doing their dirty work all these years.

Please state your source.

[AntiTrace]

feminists are just digging themselves deeper into a hole

[Ryre]

Wow. Just wow. As a criminal defense attorney, I absolutely represented men who had abused their wives/girlfriends. I also absolutely saw women who were "misusing the judicial system 'to get back at' their partners or ex-lovers."

One woman threatened to call the cops on her boyfriend if he left to go to his other girlfriend's house; when he did, she did.

Another time, I had a case where I realized I knew the victim's name from somewhere. Turned out I recognized it because she had also been the "victim" in a previous case, in which she did not show up to court after having had my client locked up for awhile. When I mentioned this to my new client, the response was "Oh yeah, she lockin everybody up."

A third woman, a late-stage alcoholic, claimed my client had kicked her in the face and broken her nose; before the cops arrived she taped a huge gauze pad over it. Later she went grocery shopping; embarrassed by the huge bandage, she took it off before going into the store. A witness saw that her nose was uninjured.

The most amazing case was the woman who called me up to tell me that she had made up the story of abuse by my client/her boyfriend, complete with tears, fear, etc. To prove it, she left me a long voicemail with an Oscar-worthy performance of sobbing and pitiful fear, finishing by saying in a completely calm voice, "I can turn it on and off at any time." She had gotten her boyfriend locked up repeatedly over the years.

Just as women have the rule "leave the first time he hits you," men need the rule "leave the first time she has you arrested." Because what will happen is, she'll call the cops on you. You'll get a low bail (first offense) and bail out. There will be a no-contact order, but she'll beg you to come back and promise to get the court to drop the charges. Then you'll get pulled over together, or she'll get mad and call the cops again, and you will be arrested for breaking the no-contact order. Now you have what is known as a "history of domestic violence." Welcome to two years of probation with expensive court-ordered domestic violence classes and jail if you miss them or can't pay.

[Walderschmidt]

If feminists were truly serious about this - false rape accusations would no longer be admissible in court.

Wald

[Dr. Howard]

The comments in the article are good, as is the below text form the article.

Quote:

Moreover, meta-analysis of police and judicial statistics reveals that only one out of six domestic violence cases reported to the police in the United States results in a conviction. Furthermore, only a third of the people arrested for domestic violence ends up convicted. These numbers illustrate a twofold problem. First, a large percentage of the afflicted population of women is not seeking judicial redress. On the other hand, those who do go through the legal process are not receiving the justice they deserve and seek.

The author assumes the lack of convictions means injustice while a commenter says it could also mean plenty of false allegations.

[Sp5]

Crikey, a man wrote this insane legal piece:




Graduated with a B.S. in Biology and a J.D. from the University of Puerto Rico, Aníbal is a Puerto Rican Law professor, linguist and photographer. He is currently serving as the Ralph S. Petrilli Distinguished Visiting Assistant Professor at University of Louisville School of Law. Professor Rosario Lebrón’s teaching career began at the University of Puerto Rico Rosario School of Law where he served for three years as an Adjunct Professor. In addition, he was an adviser for the Trial Advocacy Association and a coach for the Law School’s trial advocacy teams. During his teaching career in Puerto Rico, Aníbal served also as undergraduate professor at the Pre-Law Program of the Interdisciplinary Studies Department of the Liberal Arts College of the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus. After receiving his LL.M. in Legal Theory from New York University School of Law, Aníbal served for three years as a Visiting Assistant Professor at Hofstra University. Professor Rosario Lebrón’s research is devoted to the study of how certain narratives are used in Family, Criminal Law and Evidence to subdue various groups based mainly on their gender and sexual identities. Aníbal is also committed to close the educational gap and has worked in numerous initiatives toward this end.

[Slim Shady]

(02-18-2014 12:12 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

If feminists were truly serious about this - false rape accusations would no longer be admissible in court.

Wald

Exactly. I always think that we in the manosphere take Rape much more seriously than "woman protecting feminists". We realize that penetrating and taking someone against their will is one of the most heinous and serious crimes out there, which can not be taken lightly. Therefore we realize that accusing someone of such a crime is also a serious statement that can not be made lightly.

The reason a lot of "blue pill" men out there think "no woman will make such an accusation lightly" is not just because they don't know about attention whoring, etc, but because they do realize how serious this crime is. They are oblivious of the fact that feminists really don't care about rape at all! They give rape the same status as petty thievery in terms of crime, and getting a man jailed for 20 or killed for it about the same importance as squashing a pest.

Wake up women of the world, we are your true defenders, the shining beacons of hope and wisdom in your world - dark and oppressed by the feminist nation.

[Ensam]

(02-18-2014 12:21 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

The comments in the article are good, as is the below text form the article.

Quote:

Moreover, meta-analysis of police and judicial statistics reveals that only one out of six domestic violence cases reported to the police in the United States results in a conviction. Furthermore, only a third of the people arrested for domestic violence ends up convicted. These numbers illustrate a twofold problem. First, a large percentage of the afflicted population of women is not seeking judicial redress. On the other hand, those who do go through the legal process are not receiving the justice they deserve and seek.

The author assumes the lack of convictions means injustice while a commenter says it could also mean plenty of false allegations.

Or not even false accusations. At least 21 states have mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence cases. The laws require that someone be arrested based on a lower standard of guilt than what's required to convict them - of course there's going to be a huge discrepancy between arrests and convictions.
http://www.saveservices.org/dvlp/policy-...v-assault/

Quote:

The American Bar Association has identified 21 states with mandatory arrest for domestic violence assault (1). On their face, many of the laws appear to be consistent with Fourth Amendment probable-cause requirements. But the actual enforcement of such laws is typically based on a weaker standard than probable-cause:

Training programs for law enforcement personnel often emphasize the need to “err on the side of caution,” “hold abusers accountable,” and “give first priority to protecting victims,” admonitions that in practice mean, “Always believe the accuser” (2).
Training programs often use biased terminology, e.g., use the word “victim” instead of “accuser,” and omit the word “alleged” before “abuser” (2).
Predominant aggressor policies serve to predispose law enforcement personnel to assume the instigator is the male (3).
In one state, law enforcement officers are instructed to view a man’s statement that “She hit me first” as an “excuse” (4).
In some states, the bias is compounded by statutes that use biased or vague language:

The Nevada statute twice refers to the suspect with the male pronouns “he” and “his.”
The Oregon statute requires arrest in the event of “fear of imminent serious physical injury,” a concept that is so ambiguous that it eludes definition.
In addition, some police agencies informally adhere to a mandatory arrest policy, even when not required by state law.

Another thing that's not addressed is how often chicks who really are being abused often times don't want their abuser put away. So the chicks who want to fuck a guy over stick to their guns and the chicks who want their asshole abusive boyfriends out of jail drop their legit cases.

[Daddy]

The positive side to this blatant judicial abuse is that we won't have to make our points anymore. All these women are proving to judges, police officers and the rest of society that there are massive loopholes in the judicial system. In 10 years the number of cases will have amassed and women abusing the system will be a known fact by the common folk.

[redpillrage33]

(02-18-2014 05:03 PM)Daddy Wrote:  

The positive side to this blatant judicial abuse is that we won't have to make our points anymore. All these women are proving to judges, police officers and the rest of society that there are massive loopholes in the judicial system. In 10 years the number of cases will have amassed and women abusing the system will be a known fact by the common folk.

Honestly hope you are right.

I also hope this type of argument isn't headed to Canada. In addition to rape shield laws, our substantive sexual assault laws regarding consent are already fraked up beyond belief thanks to the liberal/radical feminist crowd.

Case in point, how messed up is this case (heard a few years ago by our top court): http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc...dWsAAAAAAQ

[lurker]

The sickest thing is that his example already has built-in safety valves. So a woman gets impeached by testimony showing her tendency to lie but otherwise unrelated to the immediate offense of domestic violence. So what? We don't need an evidentiary shield law keeping out the impeachment testimony based on irrelevance - we already have evidentiary rules in every jurisdiction I'm aware of limiting admissible evidence to that which is probative and not unduly prejudicial, AND, as a last resort, we have an empaneled factfinder tasked with determining whether that evidence is actually as damning as this author may think. Is he really arguing that overly prejudicial evidence will slip by rules expressly designed to keep it out? (See, e.g., FRE 403.) Or that a jury is incapable of figuring out whether a woman's lie on an unrelated matter two decades ago is relevant to her complaint in a domestic violence scenario?

This steaming pile of academic feces is not scholarship.

[Glock]

^^This is basically right. Such result-driven proposals assume that jurors--including women jurors--cannot be trusted to give appropriate weight to evidence that a rape accuser is lying. The proposals seek to rig the system against the accused to obtain convictions that could not obtained if the entire truth were known. In this way, the proposals are intentionally designed to acquire convictions based on half-truths. The innocent men who are convicted as a result are human sacrifices to feminism.