Mayor blames 4 year old for her own molestation

[LordKiran]

Presumed innocence. So yes as far as the courts are concerned, it does.

Who cares? That doesn't affect her actually being a victim. Only about 1% of rapes result in a conviction. Are you saying that it's a misnomer to call the other 99% rape victims and therefore the actions of their attackers would not qualify as being victim blaming?

What I'm saying is that insofar as our judicial system is concerned, she cannot be a victim because the person she alleges attacked and raped her was never found guilty. You're free to make whatever you want of that, but them's the breaks.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Who cares? That doesn't affect her actually being a victim. Only about 1% of rapes result in a conviction. Are you saying that it's a misnomer to call the other 99% rape victims and therefore the actions of their attackers would not qualify as being victim blaming?

What I'm saying is that insofar as our judicial system is concerned, she cannot be a victim because the person she alleges attacked and raped her was never found guilty. You're free to make whatever you want of that, but them's the breaks.

That's not any kind of disputed point. However, when people use the term "victim blaming", there are zero of them who have ever even once used the term in that sense, so it's not a counter to anything anyone has ever said or even something that's marginally related to the current topic of conversation.

When your defense is that you're not guilty because your accuser was responsible, you are victim blaming. The technical definition of how and when the judicial system considers someone to be a victim is not the one used in that situation.

 

[Malintent]

Most rape defenses are won because of victim blaming. Its been the case for decades.

Well, that's pretty much just an artifact of the fact that there aren't a whole lot of defenses for rape. If you're not planning on pleading guilty, you're left with either saying that you didn't have sex with her, thus blaming the victim for lying about what happened, or saying that the sex was consensual, thus blaming the victim for lying about what happened. There's not really any kind of defense a person can use which doesn't involve putting the responsibility for the situation onto the victim, therefore most successful defenses of the charges will involve blaming the victim. It's also equally the case that most rape defenses which are lost are done so despite victim blaming, because the ones who are found guilty probably used one of the only two defenses available to them as well.

Exactly. This is exactly my point.

It is useful to use a term, such as this, to describe an issue with public opinion and how it affects legislation... sideliners saying things like "She asked for it" in a rape case is what the term is useful to describe.

Using the term to describe the most common defense tactic (the claim of non consent is fallacious) tha tis made by the accused through their lawyer only harms its potency as a tool to describe an actual concern.

 

[Malintent]

So given the majority opinion is that if you are in an altercation with another individual, and you claim that the other individual is in the wrong, then you are "victim blaming".

So, why is Victim Blaming a bad thing? Isn't victim blaming really just victim identifying... isn't it better to know who the REAL victim is? In a fist fight, the person who got punched first is the victim... while the two are arguing why the other was the instigator, they are both victim blaming. why is that bad?

Victim blaming isn't a bad thing, it is a normal phase in the dispute resolution process.

I'll just ignore all those comments about victim blaming that make it sound like a bad thing, since it is really a good thing... it is a healthy part of our legal system where one is innocent until proven guilty. What do you call someone who invokes their constitutional rights? an American. What do you call the accused when they are victim blaming? The accused.

 

[laughing dog]

So given the majority opinion is that if you are in an altercation with another individual, and you claim that the other individual is in the wrong, then you are "victim blaming".

That is not the majority opinion. In fact, I don't see anyone making that argument.

 

[LordKiran]

What I'm saying is that insofar as our judicial system is concerned, she cannot be a victim because the person she alleges attacked and raped her was never found guilty. You're free to make whatever you want of that, but them's the breaks.

That's not any kind of disputed point. However, when people use the term "victim blaming", there are zero of them who have ever even once used the term in that sense, so it's not a counter to anything anyone has ever said or even something that's marginally related to the current topic of conversation.

When your defense is that you're not guilty because your accuser was responsible, you are victim blaming. The technical definition of how and when the judicial system considers someone to be a victim is not the one used in that situation.

So the idea you're putting forth, is that a majority/large percentage of people who successfully defend against rape charges do so by saying "Yeah it happened but she was asking for it?" I find that rather hard to believe.

Far more likely that they argue that no actual rape occurred in the first place.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not any kind of disputed point. However, when people use the term "victim blaming", there are zero of them who have ever even once used the term in that sense, so it's not a counter to anything anyone has ever said or even something that's marginally related to the current topic of conversation.

When your defense is that you're not guilty because your accuser was responsible, you are victim blaming. The technical definition of how and when the judicial system considers someone to be a victim is not the one used in that situation.

So the idea you're putting forth, is that a majority/large percentage of people who successfully defend against rape charges do so by saying "Yeah it happened but she was asking for it?" I find that rather hard to believe.

Far more likely that they argue that no actual rape occurred in the first place.

Geez, if only I'd actually said that exact thing in the first place and based my entire point off of it. If only ...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most rape defenses are won because of victim blaming. Its been the case for decades.

Duh! There are really only three defenses to a rape charge:

1) Wrong guy.

2) It was consensual.
(Very rare subset: Circumstances that make him believe it was consensual.)

3) She's making it up.

Note that #2 and #3 inherently are an attack on the "victim".

 

[LordKiran]

So the idea you're putting forth, is that a majority/large percentage of people who successfully defend against rape charges do so by saying "Yeah it happened but she was asking for it?" I find that rather hard to believe.

Far more likely that they argue that no actual rape occurred in the first place.

Geez, if only I'd actually said that exact thing in the first place and based my entire point off of it. If only ...

No need to be snide, I mistook you for someone else. Sorry.

 

[Malintent]

So given the majority opinion is that if you are in an altercation with another individual, and you claim that the other individual is in the wrong, then you are "victim blaming".

That is not the majority opinion. In fact, I don't see anyone making that argument.

I see everyone making arguments in this thread that boil down to the statement I just made.

 

[Malintent]

That's not any kind of disputed point. However, when people use the term "victim blaming", there are zero of them who have ever even once used the term in that sense, so it's not a counter to anything anyone has ever said or even something that's marginally related to the current topic of conversation.

When your defense is that you're not guilty because your accuser was responsible, you are victim blaming. The technical definition of how and when the judicial system considers someone to be a victim is not the one used in that situation.

So the idea you're putting forth, is that a majority/large percentage of people who successfully defend against rape charges do so by saying "Yeah it happened but she was asking for it?" I find that rather hard to believe.

Far more likely that they argue that no actual rape occurred in the first place.

There are exactly two possible defenses for a rape accusation.... possibly for ANY accusation...

1) the alleged offense DID NOT HAPPEN
2) the alleged offense HAPPENED FROM SOMEONE ELSE

name any other defense of any other crime that does not fit into a) a crime was not committed, or b) the accused is not the perpetrator of the crime.
There isn't one.

"Victim Blaming" is a SJW trigger response to anyone that defends defense claim #1, but only if the crime is sexual assault related.

 

[Malintent]

Most rape defenses are won because of victim blaming. Its been the case for decades.

Duh! There are really only three defenses to a rape charge:

1) Wrong guy.

2) It was consensual.
(Very rare subset: Circumstances that make him believe it was consensual.)

3) She's making it up.

Note that #2 and #3 inherently are an attack on the "victim".

and here we have the problem, folks.

why is it inherently an "attack on the victim" instead of being a "protection from abuse of the legal system"?

This sounds like the kind of thing someone would say that also thinks that "Exercising your 5th Amendment rights means you are guilty".

 

[KeepTalking]

So the idea you're putting forth, is that a majority/large percentage of people who successfully defend against rape charges do so by saying "Yeah it happened but she was asking for it?" I find that rather hard to believe.

Far more likely that they argue that no actual rape occurred in the first place.

There are exactly two possible defenses for a rape accusation.... possibly for ANY accusation...

1) the alleged offense DID NOT HAPPEN
2) the alleged offense HAPPENED FROM SOMEONE ELSE

name any other defense of any other crime that does not fit into a) a crime was not committed, or b) the accused is not the perpetrator of the crime.
There isn't one.

"Victim Blaming" is a SJW trigger response to anyone that defends defense claim #1, but only if the crime is sexual assault related.

You are wrong. Saying an offense did not happen is not victim blaming. Saying it happened because of something the victim of the offense did or said is victim blaming. How many times do we have to correct your misconceptions about what constitutes victim blaming before you will understand this point?

 

[Malintent]

It's as if there is expected to be an a priori acceptance of the FACT that a rape CERTAINLY occurred... and that defense claim 1 (rape didn;t happen) is just inherently off the table.

First, prove a crime was committed.
THEN, identify the assailant and seek justice.

With rape, SJWs just want to leap right into step 2 there and then are OFFENDED by the IDEA that someone might actually want to defend themselves with the ONLY possible defense available to them.

 

[Malintent]

Cop: where were you on the night of December 21st?
Man: At home, with my girlfriend.
Cop: you are under arrest for rape
...

Defense argument 2 (wasn;t me) is off the table.

now what? don't want to be a nasty horrible "Victim Blamer". So what to do? I guess just plea guilty for raping your girlfriend despite the facts of the matter.

 

[KeepTalking]

Malintent, it's as if you don't live in the same reality as I do. I just don't see that what you are describing is actually happening. In the OP case, there was no doubt that a crime was committed, and that the guilty party tried to first blame the victim before eventually entering a guilty plea. In the other thread regarding the judge's comments that keeps getting brought up here, the judge made those comments after the judgement was made against the rapist. What you are saying in no way relates to either case, so it does not reflect the reality we are discussing in this thread.

 

[Malintent]

Malintent, it's as if you don't live in the same reality as I do. I just don't see that what you are describing is actually happening. In the OP case, there was no doubt that a crime was committed, and that the guilty party tried to first blame the victim before eventually entering a guilty plea. In the other thread regarding the judge's comments that keeps getting brought up here, the judge made those comments after the judgement was made against the rapist. What you are saying in no way relates to either case, so it does not reflect the reality we are discussing in this thread.

In your first sentence you say you don't observe what I am talking about.
In your second sentence you state the same facts as I do (defense option 2 of 2 was selected - "not rape", rather than "not me")

What I am saying is that using the term "Victim Blaming" to refer to defense option 2 of 2 renders the term not meaningful.

What is meaningful about the term (which is getting lost by this usage) is that SPECTATORS (SOCIETY) to a publicized legal matter, with little or no knowledge of the facts, automatically blame a rape on the woman, because she probably "asked for it" by what she was wearing or how she was acting.

THAT is "Victim Blaming", and a sociological phenomena worthy of a "rallying label" against the mindset.

"Blaming the victim" is SOP in ANY case where the identity of the ALLEGED assailant is not in question, and the only other category of defense is denial that a law was broken in the first place. Either "not guilty" or "not included"... no other options exist (other than the non-defense of an admission of guilt, of course).

So which of what I summarized in this post is does not reflect the reality that you are observing?

Are there more than 2 categories of defense for any kind of case between the actions of two people?
Are the 2 categories not "not me" and "not a crime"?
Are people not calling "not a crime" in this matter "victim blaming"
Is the phenomina of (actual) victim blaming as I described not a "thing" (people don't blame women for rapes and when they do, it not what they mean by victim blaming)>

what is it you think is not real about anything I said?

 

[KeepTalking]

Malintent, it's as if you don't live in the same reality as I do. I just don't see that what you are describing is actually happening. In the OP case, there was no doubt that a crime was committed, and that the guilty party tried to first blame the victim before eventually entering a guilty plea. In the other thread regarding the judge's comments that keeps getting brought up here, the judge made those comments after the judgement was made against the rapist. What you are saying in no way relates to either case, so it does not reflect the reality we are discussing in this thread.

In your first sentence you say you don't observe what I am talking about.
In your second sentence you state the same facts as I do (defense option 2 of 2 was selected - "not rape", rather than "not me")

What I am saying is that using the term "Victim Blaming" to refer to defense option 2 of 2 renders the term not meaningful.

What is meaningful about the term (which is getting lost by this usage) is that SPECTATORS (SOCIETY) to a publicized legal matter, with little or no knowledge of the facts, automatically blame a rape on the woman, because she probably "asked for it" by what she was wearing or how she was acting.

THAT is "Victim Blaming", and a sociological phenomena worthy of a "rallying label" against the mindset.

"Blaming the victim" is SOP in ANY case where the identity of the ALLEGED assailant is not in question, and the only other category of defense is denial that a law was broken in the first place. Either "not guilty" or "not included"... no other options exist (other than the non-defense of an admission of guilt, of course).

So which of what I summarized in this post is does not reflect the reality that you are observing?

Are there more than 2 categories of defense for any kind of case between the actions of two people?
Are the 2 categories not "not me" and "not a crime"?
Are people not calling "not a crime" in this matter "victim blaming"
Is the phenomina of (actual) victim blaming as I described not a "thing" (people don't blame women for rapes and when they do, it not what they mean by victim blaming)>

what is it you think is not real about anything I said?

I was referring to this post of yours:

It's as if there is expected to be an a priori acceptance of the FACT that a rape CERTAINLY occurred... and that defense claim 1 (rape didn;t happen) is just inherently off the table.

First, prove a crime was committed.
THEN, identify the assailant and seek justice.

With rape, SJWs just want to leap right into step 2 there and then are OFFENDED by the IDEA that someone might actually want to defend themselves with the ONLY possible defense available to them.

I apologize, I should have quoted that post directly, but I thought the context of my post, where I noted that in both cases referred to in this thread there was no doubt that a crime was committed before the victim blaming accusations were made, would have made that clear.

 

[laughing dog]

It's as if there is expected to be an a priori acceptance of the FACT that a rape CERTAINLY occurred... and that defense claim 1 (rape didn;t happen) is just inherently off the table.

First, prove a crime was committed.
THEN, identify the assailant and seek justice.

With rape, SJWs just want to leap right into step 2 there and then are OFFENDED by the IDEA that someone might actually want to defend themselves with the ONLY possible defense available to them.

The defense "I didn't do it" is not blaming the victim. So what exactly are you going on about?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Duh! There are really only three defenses to a rape charge:

1) Wrong guy.

2) It was consensual.
(Very rare subset: Circumstances that make him believe it was consensual.)

3) She's making it up.

Note that #2 and #3 inherently are an attack on the "victim".

and here we have the problem, folks.

why is it inherently an "attack on the victim" instead of being a "protection from abuse of the legal system"?

This sounds like the kind of thing someone would say that also thinks that "Exercising your 5th Amendment rights means you are guilty".

Of course it's protection from abuse. The point is the way it happens ends up being an attack on her. There are several on here who don't think a woman can possibly be wrong about rape and thus #2 and #3 are inherently wrongful acts.