Skip to main content

View Diary: CO-Sen: Buck didn't prosecute rape case because he believed victim had abortion (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm trying to understand... (0+ / 0-)

    ...what the problem is here. He didn't think he had a prosecutable case and told her so. It's only because abortion (omg) is involved that people suddenly make accusations without proof.

    Guess what? If you're a DA and you have evidence that you don't think a jury will convict on, you don't file charges. It's the only responsible thing to do.

    These kind of cases are notoriously difficult to try. People make false accusations all the time (many many such cases are documented in the media, even for stupid and trivial reasons). Without physical evidence (in most cases) and evidence of at least some level of consent (he cites that too, which no one here mentions) you're stuck with he-said she-said.

    I'm sure that about 50 posters are going to put Sparhawk on their hate list and I'll probably get troll rated for saying this, but it's the truth. Unless someone can come up with some actual evidence of malfeasance, I just can't see where the problem is here.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 09:38:38 AM PDT

    •  the thing is abortion wasn't involved, (9+ / 0-)

      She had had a miscarriage. Buck introduced abortion into this case as I understand it.

      "I drank what?!" -Socrates

      by bagman on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 09:42:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think (6+ / 0-)

      You should read the front page story from yesterday and possibly scroll up in this thread and read the rest of the article.  Or maybe you should click on the little link in the article and read the whole thing for yourself.  Then, come back and re-read your comments about this situation.  Imagine you were this woman and/or her family, and ask what would you have expected the prosecutor to do for you?

      •  I did read the whole article (0+ / 0-)

        The guy "snuck" into her home at night when she was drunk and she weakly tried to push him away and he wouldn't stop (she says). No physical evidence. She has previously consented to this guy and has a complex relationship with him that gives her a plausible motive to lie (like I said, people lie about this kind of stuff all the time: for revenge, to get custody of kids, etc).

        I'm not saying that I know what happened. I don't. Neither do you. Neither did, apparently, Buck. Does the above story scream "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to you?

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 09:46:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Are you fucking serious? (5+ / 0-)

      Read the police report . The guy tried to wake her up out of a drunken stupor so he could "apologize."

      "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

      by Apost8 on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 10:18:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's your evidence: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PAbluestater, esquimaux, i like bbq

      The suspect admitted she didn't give consent. From the transcript:

      V: No, that’s not what that says ... (reading police report). He stated the victim did say no, he does recall the victim rolling over and saying no. That’s me saying no during the act, that’s me not giving consent.

      What "level of consent" are you talking about? The fact that they had been sexual in the past? The fact that she invited him into her house? The fact that she was partially undressed when he got there? None of those things qualifies.

      You might need some remedial classes on what constitutes sexual consent.

      Investigate or be incriminated.

      by chase on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 10:51:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (0+ / 0-)

        You might need some remedial classes on what constitutes sexual consent.

        You might need some remedial classes on what constitutes reasonable doubt.

        What "level of consent" are you talking about? The fact that they had been sexual in the past? The fact that she invited him into her house? The fact that she was partially undressed when he got there? None of those things qualifies.

        While none of these things legally qualifies as consent, you have to convince 12 ordinary people that a person deserves to have their life ruined and freedom taken away for years based on the fact that there is no reasonable doubt that a rape occurred.

        The fact that they had been consensually sexual in the past, that she invited him in, that she was partially undressed, yeah, that says to me "reasonable doubt". I'm not even sure I'd vote to convict (and put someone in jail for a looong time) with that fact pattern, his statements notwithstanding.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 03:43:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hope you're never on a rape jury (0+ / 0-)

          He admitted in his statement to the police that she said "no".

          By your standard there'd be no such thing as acquaintance rape. Justice doesn't mean looking at statistics and then just throwing up your hands.

          Investigate or be incriminated.

          by chase on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 02:42:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Normally I'd agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      filby

      And I even think there are some things taken out of context, like the threat of public humiliation.  To me it sounds a bit like fair warning about what's involved, because a motion to compel prosecution is going to get a lot of press, more than a run-of-the-mill case.  So yeah there's a bit of a threat in the quote, but it wouldn't be Buck actually carrying it out, it would be a relentless and, let's face it, nasty press.

      But still the suspect admitted to the rape in the police report.  Yet Buck seemed to have zero interest in the victim's account of things.  Isn't the right wing always the ones screeching about victims' rights?

      Malfeasance, no.  Callous disregard, sure reads like it.

      You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

      by sproingie on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 11:17:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site