False rape allegations meet #BlackLivesMatter

[Derec]

A Texas woman, Sherita Dixon-Cole, was pulled over by a cop and detained. Then she accused him of raping her.
Talcum X was quick to take her side, as was the black-focused website The Root. Unfortunately they have edited their original articles in light of recent revelations:
Bodycam video refutes Texas trooper assault claim; attorney apologizes

That lawyer, Lee Meritt, has a history of making bombastic but false claims. This is the first time I am aware of that he actually apologized.

Even Talcum had to set the record straight, kind of.
When the “victim” you fought for turns out to be the victimizer: Sherita Dixon-Cole and the painful consequences of a false report of sexual assault and police misconduct

All the more reason why we should not believe accusations without evidence. Neutrality should be the goal unless and until more evidence comes to light.

 

[Toni]

A Texas woman, Sherita Dixon-Cole, was pulled over by a cop and detained. Then she accused him of raping her.
Talcum X was quick to take her side, as was the black-focused website The Root. Unfortunately they have edited their original articles in light of recent revelations:
Bodycam video refutes Texas trooper assault claim; attorney apologizes

That lawyer, Lee Meritt, has a history of making bombastic but false claims. This is the first time I am aware of that he actually apologized.

Even Talcum had to set the record straight, kind of.
When the “victim” you fought for turns out to be the victimizer: Sherita Dixon-Cole and the painful consequences of a false report of sexual assault and police misconduct

All the more reason why we should not believe accusations without evidence. Neutrality should be the goal unless and until more evidence comes to light.

I would seriously love to see you adopt a position of neutrality and waiting for evidence before you make judgment. And not just for rape allegations.

 

[Derec]

I would seriously love to see you adopt a position of neutrality and waiting for evidence before you make judgment. And not just for rape allegations.

I have. I have not posted about Sherita until evidence refuting her claims came to light.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Derec is so happy when he finds an actual case of someone who lied about rape. It is like children on Christmas Morning.

 

[laughing dog]

What does this have to do with BLM?

 

[starwater]

Derec is so happy when he finds an actual case of someone who lied about rape. It is like children on Christmas Morning.

Yes and we only have to wait until he finds the next one. It's so predictable.

 

[dismal]

Who could have guessed this would become a thread about Derec?

 

[Toni]

I would seriously love to see you adopt a position of neutrality and waiting for evidence before you make judgment. And not just for rape allegations.

I have. I have not posted about Sherita until evidence refuting her claims came to light.

Why do you feel entitled to refer to a stranger by her first name?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Who could have guessed this would become a thread about Derec?

Its the easiest way to derail the topic. It works every time.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's a big reason it "works every time."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What does this have to do with BLM?

Talcum X jumped on the issue before he had all the facts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the real issue here is the intrusive police state where the cops monitor and videotape everybody's interactions with them. Clearly, the evidence of the officer's innocence should be thrown out on constitutional grounds.

 

[laughing dog]

What does this have to do with BLM?

Talcum X jumped on the issue before he had all the facts.

What does that have to do with BLM?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who could have guessed this would become a thread about Derec?

Its the easiest way to derail the topic. It works every time.

What was there to derail? Derec's innocent child like reaction to Christmas morning when he finds an actually substantiated case of a woman lying about being raped?

A claim was made, it was refuted with evidence, and the officer is exonerated. I don't think there is much else to say. An innocent person didn't get into trouble, which is good.

 

[dismal]

I think that the real issue here is the intrusive police state where the cops monitor and videotape everybody's interactions with them. Clearly, the evidence of the officer's innocence should be thrown out on constitutional grounds.

Wait, what does that have to do with Derec?

Try to stay on topic.

 

[laughing dog]

Who could have guessed this would become a thread about Derec?

Its the easiest way to derail the topic. It works every time.

What was there to derail? Derec's innocent child like reaction to Christmas morning when he finds an actually substantiated case of a woman lying about being raped?

A claim was made, it was refuted with evidence, and the officer is exonerated. I don't think there is much else to say. An innocent person didn't get into trouble, which is good.

And, of course, there was no BLM protest or outrage (contrary to the OP title), and that the blogger's name is not Talcum X nor does he refer to himself in that manner. In otherwords, this was the typical pointless dig at one of someone's boogeymen.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the real issue here is the intrusive police state where the cops monitor and videotape everybody's interactions with them. Clearly, the evidence of the officer's innocence should be thrown out on constitutional grounds.

Wait, what does that have to do with Derec?

Try to stay on topic.

Well, then it becomes a he-said-she-said situation where everyone can take their standard roles defending their side and impugning the character of the people on the other side. Video evidence introduces facts into the debate which might cause someone to think.

 

[Derec]

And, of course, there was no BLM protest or outrage (contrary to the OP title),

Talcum is the face of #BLM and he did make it about race.

and that the blogger's name is not Talcum X nor does he refer to himself in that manner.

That's a moniker the Internet gave him because he is a white man who pretends to be a black revolutionary.

In otherwords, this was the typical pointless dig at one of someone's boogeymen.

Well Talcum, or if you prefer, Shaun, is at fault for this one. He did not have to make the angry post defaming a police officer before the facts were in. Here is the screen shot his original tweet.

Also, this case reinforces the point that I keep hammering in both rape and #BLM cases - we need to be neutral until sufficient facts are in. Oftentimes people jump the gun and assume police who shoot a black suspect or any man accused of rape automatically guilty.

 

[laughing dog]

Talcum is the face of #BLM and he did make it about race.

I am sure that BLM does not agree that this man is the "face" of the movement. Did the BLM protest? If the answer is no, then your claim is a false.

That's a moniker the Internet gave him because he is a white man who pretends to be a black revolutionary.

So it is a derogatory name not his real name.

Well Talcum, or if you prefer, Shaun, is at fault for this one....

No, you are responsible for the content of your OPs and your posts. No one forced you to jump to any conclusions about the BLM or call people names. Yes, he jumped to the wrong conclusion, like countless other people, including you and me.

 

[fast]

All the more reason why we should not believe accusations without evidence. Neutrality should be the goal unless and until more evidence comes to light.

While there is good merit for the first sentence, the second, though meant well, may not be entirely true.

It's a good thing not to rush to judgement (at least not final judgement). Stay nimble to move in the bobbling direction new evidence brings, but neutral (as if each added piece of incoming evidence has no weight) is going a bit too far.

If a black man enters my yard, I may not immediately become alarmed and be close to this sense of neautrality, but if it's 2 in the morning and it's a high crime area with ongoing concerns of prevalent black crime (prevalent, I say), even if absolutely no additional information is available, I will not be neautral and raise my guard in unneautral fashion.

No final judgment is rendered, even if he should be wearing a mask and entering through a window. Things can become increasingly thin, as the mask might be because the doctor had ordered it, at night because he was at a nearby party and overheard screams of help. He could be there to render assistance or aid for a damsel in distress. Full, final judgement, no. Each piece of evidence alters the degree from a neautral position while not going full blown convinced one way or the other--as I'm swept through the winding currents of the evidence producing rapids.