What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
I Think I'm A Clone Now view!
funimation.com - Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 You Are (Not) Alone anime movie -- Available Now DVD.
355 Comments
- dantidote, on 06/08/2008, -1/+368You sir are sentenced 15 years in prison for doing something to that person.
- iceman0113, on 06/08/2008, -4/+260Fine, use synonyms: ravish, violate, assault, dishonor, assail, assault, attack, spoil, despoil, plunder, destroy, ruin
"He viciously plundered his ***** into my vagina without my consent. He continued this disgusting act for __ minutes/hours. This violation and defilement of my body etc..." Make it more graphic then. I guarantee you, the judge will allow the word rape back into the courtroom if she describes it in such a manner. - inactive, on 06/08/2008, -18/+235Surprise sex
- godd4242, on 06/09/2008, -12/+162UNAUTHORIZED PENIS INSERTION IS THE NEW TERM
GET WITH IT PEOPLE - valis, on 06/08/2008, -10/+102This judge is a fool, and I don't use the word without careful consideration.
- tehbored, on 06/08/2008, -7/+90I hope her case does move on to the Supreme Court. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. It wouldn't be the first time they would be dealing with a free speech vs. rights of the accused case.
- sockpuppets, on 06/08/2008, -5/+70... and did the defendant skeet, skeet, skeet upon you? When you attempted to escape did you find you were supermaned?
- diggit08, on 06/08/2008, -25/+88Political correctness gone mad.
- inactive, on 06/09/2008, -3/+57As an attorney I can tell you that this is fairly common in sexual assault trials
- Izult, on 06/09/2008, -1/+50might as well say "***** against my will" or "unwillingly *****"
- Falldog, on 06/09/2008, -2/+45I'm sorry, you're not allowed to say "fool." Instead you have to use "a person who lacks judgment or sense."
- brutalentropy, on 06/08/2008, -12/+55Wow. This is about a woman who was victimized and can't tell her side of the story in a trial, and you have to bring politics in to it. You need some help, man.
- brutalentropy, on 06/08/2008, -8/+49I'm a "progressive", and I certainly don't support anything like this. I support free speech. Please provide evidence to back up your assertion that this is part of the "progressive agenda".
- IHaveCrayons, on 06/09/2008, -3/+42"viciously plundered his *****"? Err yeah, I think telling the judge that he STOLE (like a pirate) his ***** into her vagina would make tons of sense.
- catherder702, on 06/09/2008, -5/+44Hey, Lone, go cheney yourself.
- Seldon2639, on 06/09/2008, -17/+54Guys, it does make some sense. The entire concept of a trial by jury is predicated on it being fair. The only way it's fair is if we don't allow things that will bias the jury unduly. The judge was very clear, she could speak of the details of what happened, but using words like "rape", "assault", "victim", and "assailant" have emotional and connotative elements that he was right to prohibit. It's not about political correctness, it's about keeping a fair trial.
If any of us were put on trial, we'd probably object to emotional epithets being directed at us. To say "rape" is to assume the end decision on the part of the jury. In the same way we refer to defendants as "the defendant" or "the accused" rather than "the criminal", the judge made the right call - spanglegluppet, on 06/09/2008, -2/+37"He forcefully ravaged my vagina."
- TheAkolyte, on 06/09/2008, -2/+36Sounds like an ATM error.
- Tangaroa, on 06/08/2008, -6/+36What's worse is he came down on the wrong side of the facts in both cases.
Bork was the guy they finally found who would put Nixon's orders above the law during the Saturday Night Massacre, when Nixon fired successive Attorneys General who were investigating his crimes. A decade later, Reagan nominated Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork slandered his own reputation through his actions which show him to be unfit for any government office let alone the highest.
The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" lied a lot, starting with the opening claim that they served with John Kerry. The only one of them who actually served with Kerry was the one Kerry threw off his boat for shooting up a civilian canoe. Everyone else who served with Kerry supported him. The Pentagon investigated the Swift Boaters' claims and found them completely meritless. - stonedthot, on 06/09/2008, -4/+33I AM IMPORTANT SO I USE CAPITAL LETTERS
- 47f0, on 06/09/2008, -0/+29Apparently, if I shoot you, you can't use the word "shot" in court. If I put you in the hospital with a tire iron, you can't use the words "strike" or "hit".
The term "rape" concisely describes non-consensual sex. The fact that rape is a defined crime doesn't take the word off the table.
This judge is either a moron, or a sadist. Either way, unfit to hold his office. - Falldog, on 06/09/2008, -10/+38Quite frankly I'm disgusted.
- suntzusputnik, on 06/09/2008, -1/+26that judge lacks judgement
- feliks2, on 06/09/2008, -3/+27Reading these replies, I have never laughed so hard at something like this. I almost feel terrible.
- scottmc, on 06/09/2008, -11/+35Seems they made the girls name part of the story, but left the "accused" name out of it. Well a little googling and it is:
Pamir Safi
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=2 ... - SoonerRoadie, on 06/09/2008, -3/+26Its likely because whether or not "rape" has occurred is a legal conclusion, and it is up to the jury to decide if what happened falls within the legal definition of rape. Obviously the victim feels raped, and most likely would want to express it that way, but, in order to be fair to all defendants (who, after all could have been falsely accused) the victim isn't supposed to testify about the ultimate issue - whether or not a rape has occurred.
- DaDrake, on 06/08/2008, -0/+22This happens a lot. Essentially, the lawyers made a motion and the judge agreed to it so they wouldn't have grounds for an appeal. looks like her lawyers will try to circumvent the judge.
- inactive, on 06/09/2008, -0/+20That's exactly right. The witness can say "I saw a guy shoot and kill someone," or "that guy punched me in the face." Whether that person is guilty of "murder" or "assault" depends on whether those actions satisfy the elements of those crimes.
Think about it: what if I waltzed into court and said "your honor, Qeveren assaulted me." The judge would likely ask what exactly it was that Qeveren did. Suppose all you did was write a post on Digg that irked me. Does it make sense that I should refuse to tell him the details of your actions and to merely insist that you "assaulted" me? Would you enjoy being sent to jail for assault on the basis of that assertion? - pHreaksYcle, on 06/09/2008, -0/+19Judge no likey "rape". RTFA
- Pake, on 06/09/2008, -0/+18The point is the same, but the weight of the words are completely different. You shouldn't use the weight of words to prove a case, you should use the physical evidence.
- lhbaker, on 06/08/2008, -7/+25Yeah, because we progressives are soooo anti-free speech.
- BobakN, on 06/09/2008, -3/+21Wild accusations and misrepresentation of the progressive agenda are just part of the conservative agenda.
(Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this was a joke!) - inactive, on 06/09/2008, -4/+21 A witness(including the victim) is not allowed to state a legal conclusion unless that person is an expert witness. The term "rape" implies the legal conclusion that a crime as been committed. That is why judges often prevent victims from using the term on the stand. It is prejudicial to the accused. This is not a unique case.
- publiclurker, on 06/08/2008, -5/+22Then it's unanimous, LoneRanger85's word for rape is "the only way I could get any"
- atdigg, on 06/09/2008, -11/+27I see that you already reached a verdict (most of the posters above) This comes to prove that this was a wise decision from the judge, she can describe what happened without using loaded terms.
- PhilLesh69, on 06/09/2008, -0/+16I don't even think this is a case of free speech or rights of the accused. This is a basic, common sense issue of what the law says, what the statutes are, and what a person is being charged with.
If a person is charged with rape, is on trial for RAPE, then I do not see how the word rape can be excluded from the proceedings.
I guess one argument of defense lawyers could be that she is convicting him before trial or something like that, but what should a bank teller say when on the witness stand of a bank robbery trial? He came up to my window and requested an unconventional withdrawal of funds that were not from his own personal account" ???
I think the most a judge should do is inform the jury that the victim is providing a description of events that the jury is then supposed to use as part of the evidence with which to convict or exonerate the accused. Any use of the words describing the charges are not proof that the charges are valid, they are simply evidentiary testimony.
Sure, there are people who might serve on juries who would hear the word "rape" and immediately conclude that whoever that charge is placed upon is unquestionably and conclusively guilty, by the mere fact that someone uttered the word, but those people should be vetted during jury selection, and removed from the jury pool. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/09/2008, -5/+20Great, so next we should start calling murder victims as "the departed." Their accused killers should not be called "murders" by anyone but rather "individuals." And instead of saying "He stabbed he 19 times" we'll say "he may have inserted a metallic item into her body a number of times." After all, knives are scary things. So is stabbing, and 19 times is A LOT. It wouldn't be far to use such strong language that might persuade the jury he is guilty.
The real problem with your arguement is that the entire reason there even is a trial to begin with is the guy is being accused of RAPE. He isn't being charges with "non-consensual sexual relations." It's a RAPE case. And what "justice" is there in telling someone they can't describe what happened to them in anything but the terms which make sense to them? - inactive, on 06/09/2008, -9/+24It's great to live in a free country! You're as free as you're allowed to be. When you're told what you can and cannot say in the courts (the supposedly impartial arm of the triumvirate that is our Republic) it's time to think outside the box.
Pink mist is well understood by all. Once it starts showing up, things will change rapidly. Until then it's the lawyers vs. the people. If you think you have a chance at a fair trial in the US you're sadly mistaken. Your trial will only be as fair as you can afford. - keithwired, on 06/09/2008, -5/+20The idea here is that since the man is on trial for the crime and has not yet been convicted of "rape" then she should not be using the term since he is still innocent until proven guilty. Yes it is dumb but this is the way things are in court, any minute aspect that could unfairly sway a jury one way or another is scrutinized in court.
- swordphish, on 06/09/2008, -8/+23I totally agree with this decision. Sadly, odds are the members of the jury are biased in some way or another and the prosecutor(s) know this. How many times have you heard the word "paint a picture of the defendant" ? Slanderous terminology is a cheap shot and every lawyer knows how to play those cards very well; it borders on the very fringe of morality and untained justice. Not saying that the word "rape" is slanderous in any way, but in the hands of the right person, a simple word can be devastating.
- KingGorilla, on 06/09/2008, -5/+19Technically it's not rape if you yell surprise
- Frostman3D, on 06/09/2008, -4/+18That's *****! He was accused of rape, charged with rape, is on trial for rape, and not allowing the victim in the case call it rape is another attempt to rape her by the ***** courts.
- crombat, on 06/09/2008, -5/+19FTA - "Despite the semantic restrictions, the Jackson County jury last week found Ray Slaughter guilty of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sodomy."
They should've added on manslaughter just because. - inactive, on 06/09/2008, -4/+17Nothing to do with PC, all to do with the rights of the alledged offender.
- PhilLesh69, on 06/09/2008, -2/+15It's not. It's part of the "I'm a lawyer and I am going to do whatever I have to do to get my client found innocent, even if he actually did commit the crime" agenda.
I understand their logic, not that I agree with it. "Rape" is a loaded word, it invokes emotional responses in juries. But so does "murder" and "assualt" and "armed robbery", or how about "pedophile" or "child molestor" or "crack cocaine"?
If "rape" is defined in the statutes, and the person on trial has been charged with it, there is no reason not to mention those charges, as described in the statutes, in court. - PopsGG, on 08/28/2009, -6/+19surprise butt sexs?
- fxu1989, on 06/09/2008, -0/+13What if it's the other way...?
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF VAGINA? - Homerr, on 06/09/2008, -0/+12This judge is raping her again.
- keeganspeck, on 06/09/2008, -1/+13WHO COMES UP WITH THESE RIDICULOUS AGENDAS
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/09/2008, -0/+11Ever heard of GHB?
And just because she's too drunk to understand what's happening doesn't mean she consents, ass-hat. -
Show 51 - 100 of 366 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is