Hey, a Balitmore prosecutor even "you know who" would like!

[Medicine Man]

So....how often would someone have to be accused, of rape, for them to be awarded the official-title??

View attachment 7860​

Accusations themselves are not proving guilt.​

.....Only that the dude is really popular with women who don't even know him....yet, have his DNA, huh??

 

[Derec]

.....Only that the dude is really popular with women who don't even know him....yet, have his DNA, huh??

I wouldn't know about being popular with women.

 

[Medicine Man]

.....Only that the dude is really popular with women who don't even know him....yet, have his DNA, huh??

I wouldn't know about being popular with women. ​

Which would explain your desire to dominate them.

Hey!! At least you're getting a lil' free-therapy, here!!

​

 

[Toni]

I wouldn't know about being popular with women. ​

Which would explain your desire to dominate them.

Hey!! At least you're getting a lil' free-therapy, here!!

View attachment 7867​

And so the torch is passed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-rape-seems-like-a-conniving-little-whore/

After a Baltimore woman reported her rape to police, the prosecutor on the case shared his thoughts with an officer. “I am not excited about charging it,” the unnamed official wrote in an email. “This victim seems like a conniving little whore.”

Although he still admits she's a victim we'll take what we can get, right?

Didn't we already have a thread on this?

I would take this as suspecting that she's lying.

 

[Enigma]

It's 25 posts into this thread and I still have absolutely no idea why Voldemort would approve of any Muggle lawyer, much less this particular prosecutor in Baltimore.

 

[zorq]

It's 25 posts into this thread and I still have absolutely no idea why Voldemort would approve of any Muggle lawyer, much less this particular prosecutor in Baltimore.

It is against forum rules to call out posters in thread titles. But with a little context, notorious posters with well known personality traits can be expected to participate in threads that have certain themes and subject matters.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Where a prosecutor was faulted because he disbelieved an accuser after talking to her.

Where did he say he doubted her story?
She has an offputting personality, and maybe he doesn't look forward to trying to make her presentable to a jury, but I don't see where he claims she wasn't raped.

 

[Derec]

Where a prosecutor was faulted because he disbelieved an accuser after talking to her.

Where did he say he doubted her story?
She has an offputting personality, and maybe he doesn't look forward to trying to make her presentable to a jury, but I don't see where he claims she wasn't raped.

The adjective "lying" didn't clue you in?

- - - Updated - - -

It is against forum rules to call out posters in thread titles.

But thinly veiled call outs are fine?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Medicine Man, DNA can only show who contributed the sample as it were. It cannot tell if it was consensual sex or rape. You need other evidence to establish that.

Did you ignore the part that said "serial rapists"?

Rapists sometimes rape when having sex, but not all times they have sex are they committing rape.

#notallrapistsrapeeverytimetheyhavesex

 

[Bronzeage]

Shouldn't prosecutors and police officers be able to discuss the merits of a criminal complaint (and credibility of a complainant) without it being published everywhere so that feminazis can be all outraged that not every rape accuser is believed without qualification*.

...

No more than you can make the kind of post you create, and be immune to the reactions of the people who read them.

The merits of a criminal complaint should be discussed in a court of law. It is not the place of a prosecutor to discuss potential criminal cases, or the credibility of either defendant or victim, before the trial takes place and testimony is heard.

 

[Derec]

No more than you can make the kind of post you create, and be immune to the reactions of the people who read them.

I'll ignore the ad hominem. But I won't ignore the utter ignorance you have of the criminal justice process you exhibit below.

The merits of a criminal complaint should be discussed in a court of law. It is not the place of a prosecutor to discuss potential criminal cases, or the credibility of either defendant or victim, before the trial takes place and testimony is heard.

Prosecutors do not take all cases to trial. Not even close. It is exactly the place of prosecutors, and of investigating officers, to discuss merits of criminal complaints and credibility of the accusers.
If all criminal complaints proceeded to trial you'd have to serve jury duty much more frequently and your taxes would be higher as well (trials are expensive).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Where did he say he doubted her story?
She has an offputting personality, and maybe he doesn't look forward to trying to make her presentable to a jury, but I don't see where he claims she wasn't raped.

The adjective "lying" didn't clue you in?

That's what I was looking for. Where is that in the article?
Much less his statement?

 

[Bronzeage]

I'll ignore the ad hominem. But I won't ignore the utter ignorance you have of the criminal justice process you exhibit below.

The merits of a criminal complaint should be discussed in a court of law. It is not the place of a prosecutor to discuss potential criminal cases, or the credibility of either defendant or victim, before the trial takes place and testimony is heard.

Prosecutors do not take all cases to trial. Not even close. It is exactly the place of prosecutors, and of investigating officers, to discuss merits of criminal complaints and credibility of the accusers.
If all criminal complaints proceeded to trial you'd have to serve jury duty much more frequently and your taxes would be higher as well (trials are expensive).

It's not an ad hominem, it's an accurate assessment. It's the sort thing to which you are immune.

It's good to know that Constitutional rights have to be cost effective in order to be exercised. I suppose the DA could use some kind of spread sheet to determine if a conviction would be profitable enough to take the risk.

 

[Derec]

It's not an ad hominem, it's an accurate assessment. It's the sort thing to which you are immune.

Instead of talking about the thread topic, you are attacking the poster. That's classic ad hominem.

It's good to know that Constitutional rights have to be cost effective in order to be exercised. I suppose the DA could use some kind of spread sheet to determine if a conviction would be profitable enough to take the risk.

There is no constitutional right to have every criminal complaint tried. On the contrary. Constitution grants the right to a jury trial to the defendant, not to the accuser.

 

[Bronzeage]

Instead of talking about the thread topic, you are attacking the poster. That's classic ad hominem.

It's good to know that Constitutional rights have to be cost effective in order to be exercised. I suppose the DA could use some kind of spread sheet to determine if a conviction would be profitable enough to take the risk.

There is no constitutional right to have every criminal complaint tried. On the contrary. Constitution grants the right to a jury trial to the defendant, not to the accuser.

Actually there is. The 14th amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law." This applies to accusers and defendants.

 

[Derec]

Actually there is. The 14th amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law." This applies to accusers and defendants.

No it does not actually. Everybody is equal before the law, which means anybody accused of a crime does (or at least should) have the same rights. However, accusers and defendants have different roles and thus are treated differently. A defendant has a right to a jury trial. An accuser does not, unless she becomes a defendant (for making a false accusation for example).
An accuser cannot compel a case to go to trial. All criminal trials are brought not in the name of the accused but in the name of the people. The prosecuting attorney represents the people, not the accuser. As such it is their responsibility to choose which cases to bring to trial and which not, based on evidence and also their impression of the credibility of the accuser.

Interesting legal theory on the 14th amendment though. I suggest you try it on an actual lawyer sometime and watch them laugh.

How the Prosecutor Decides Which Cases to Charge

So yeah, the system is not perfect, but your idea to take every possible criminal complaint to trial would be a disaster. Imagine somebody accuses you of a crime for no reason. Should you have to go through a trial just because a bogus accusation was made?

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually there is. The 14th amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law." This applies to accusers and defendants.

No it does not actually. Everybody is equal before the law, which means anybody accused of a crime does (or at least should) have the same rights. However, accusers and defendants have different roles and thus are treated differently. A defendant has a right to a jury trial. An accuser does not, unless she becomes a defendant (for making a false accusation for example).
An accuser cannot compel a case to go to trial. All criminal trials are brought not in the name of the accused but in the name of the people. The prosecuting attorney represents the people, not the accuser. As such it is their responsibility to choose which cases to bring to trial and which not, based on evidence and also their impression of the credibility of the accuser.

Interesting legal theory on the 14th amendment though. I suggest you try it on an actual lawyer sometime and watch them laugh.

How the Prosecutor Decides Which Cases to Charge

So yeah, the system is not perfect, but your idea to take every possible criminal complaint to trial would be a disaster. Imagine somebody accuses you of a crime for no reason. Should you have to go through a trial just because a bogus accusation was made?

There is a procedure which can include a Grand Jury, which determines if a crime was committed and if there is sufficient evidence to accuse someone of the crime. It is the prosecutor's duty to present cases which merit a Grand Jury hearing. Anything less is malfeasance of office.

"Equal protection under the law" is a pretty explicit term. If you want to argue that some people are more equal than others, there is precedent for that.

 

[Derec]

There is a procedure which can include a Grand Jury, which determines if a crime was committed and if there is sufficient evidence to accuse someone of the crime. It is the prosecutor's duty to present cases which merit a Grand Jury hearing. Anything less is malfeasance of office.

If there is a complaint where the investigating officers and the prosecutor think that there is no credibility or merit to it, it would be malfeasance to take the case further. See Nifong, Mike.
Anybody can file a criminal complaint at a police station. That does not mean it will be taken further if it lacks merit.

"Equal protection under the law" is a pretty explicit term. If you want to argue that some people are more equal than others, there is precedent for that.

That does not mean what you think it means though.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's 25 posts into this thread and I still have absolutely no idea why Voldemort would approve of any Muggle lawyer, much less this particular prosecutor in Baltimore.

It is against forum rules to call out posters in thread titles. But with a little context, notorious posters with well known personality traits can be expected to participate in threads that have certain themes and subject matters.

This is true troll ingenuity indeed. Can't start threads to troll people by name, so make veiled references to draw them in to continue the bickering. Brilliant OP really.