-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Kobe has won the LMFAO, only winner in history
- Thread starter Jack Remington
- Start date
Damn.
How did her name get out? Usually if you accuse someone you have the right to remain anonymous, no? :/
The way his legal team treated her is a good part of why the dude came out of this pretty unscathed honestly. It's pretty similar to the standard defense except back then the criticism of the methodolgy and the support for victims wasn't nearly as strong.
There is an impressive amount of legal misinformation in this thread and the other one.
The case did not go to trial.
Kobe's innocence was not proven.
Charges were only "dropped" because the accuser expressed an unwillingness to testify.
Her silence in subsequent years does not signal anything other than adherence to a confidentiality, non-disclosure, or non-disparagement agreement.
Please, if you are not an attorney, at least make an attempt to remark carefully on legal matters, as semantic differences can be important.
That the accuser was harassed, threatened, and generally tormented is incontrovertible. I don't know how - or why - anyone would suggest that she wasn't.
The case did not go to trial.
Kobe's innocence was not proven.
Charges were only "dropped" because the accuser expressed an unwillingness to testify.
Her silence in subsequent years does not signal anything other than adherence to a confidentiality, non-disclosure, or non-disparagement agreement.
Please, if you are not an attorney, at least make an attempt to remark carefully on legal matters, as semantic differences can be important.
That the accuser was harassed, threatened, and generally tormented is incontrovertible. I don't know how - or why - anyone would suggest that she wasn't.
OP
OP
Really not sure why, in an adversarial justice system, people would expect a defense team not to be adversarial and bring up what they see as arguments weakening the prosecution's case.
We really need that other thread reopened so that people can take the legal stuff in there though.
We really need that other thread reopened so that people can take the legal stuff in there though.
You're a Lakers fan, correct? Forgive me for taking your posts with a grain of salt then.
No, this is the proper place to have this discussion given the context of the current climate and the fact that even in an adversarial justice system, the defense went far and beyond what most people would deem as acceptable. Saying the accuser was mentally ill? Painting her as promiscuous and saying that was the reason she sustained her injuries?
There is a way to defend yourself while still having an appropriate amount of respect for your accuser, and Kobe Bryant did not meet those standards.
OP
OP
The defense should not bring up arguments that weaken the prosecution's case?
I pray you never have to rely on such a defense team. There's no such thing as "respect" in a criminal trial. The prosecution is trying to put someone behind bars. The defense is doing everything they can to prevent that.
We want to encourage people who are assaulted to come forward. What she went through actively discourages that.
Doesn't really address a defense team defending their client. I don't think there are too many people here clamoring for victims to shut up either. I could've missed some posts though.
Their job is to weaken the other side's case. Their job isn't to name her about 6-8 times knowing full well what the result of that will be. How can you defend that?
Ditto for those "we" don't.
I haven't been here long but it does seem strange to me that it's permissable to openly call someone a rapist when the justice system has determined they don't have a case to answer.
It also seems strange for people to compare a singular incident more than a decade ago to the Weinstein allegations which number in the dozens.
For a place that thinks Tom Brady is the devil it's weird that Kobe has so many people defending him.
Good for him that he won but I understand why some would be upset that he did, especially at this time.
Good for him that he won but I understand why some would be upset that he did, especially at this time.
He was banned for this?
What. History states this.
Corresponding Video:
Last edited:
OP
OP
Generally we also want to avoid false convictions in our criminal justice system. Having defense teams hold back and not pursue every line of argument available to them actively encourages that.
After seeing Ryutaro's Mama get banned simply for bringing up facts that were entered into evidence in an official criminal trial, I'll stop there. The defense had what they thought were facts that weakened the prosecution's case. It would be malpractice not to bring those up.
Are you an attorney? You speak as though you have knowledge of criminal procedure, but the comments reek of ignorance.
An accuser's mental health and sexual past are extremely sensitive evidentiary issues and not simply considered fair game for defense counsel to employ at their whim.
You're both right, and this is a tough conversation to have. The defense's job is to get the client off, no matter the cost. However, I am free to criticize those methods, especially when they involve calling the accuser mentally ill. Sorry.
To be fair that stuff could have been very relevant to the case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html
If she had sex with someone else right after her encounter with Bryant, it makes it hard to get a read on the physical evidence in the case.
I hate the Lakers with a passion by the way.
I think that trying to call a sexual assault victim a slut (which often happens), while also calling into question her character (by saying she's mentally ill so she made it up/misunderstood/whatever) is disgusting. The level of harassment that she faced from outside of the court system was also disgusting. I can guarantee you, at least speaking from my own personal experience, that the fear of going through all of that has discouraged people from coming forward.
The physical evidence was valid, but the way the defense used it to paint the accuser as a slut was not. Because that's what wound up happening.
Ketkat put into words what I was having a hard time expressing. It was the stereotypical defense down to a T. The accuser is promiscuous and mentally ill, so clearly she is lying.
OP
OP
I'll agree that the stuff she was subjected to outside the courtroom should not have happened.
I believe their claim was going and having sex with another man a few hours afterwards was not consistent with a typical rape victim. Which honestly they probably are well within their rights to bring up.
You are free and I think our posts illustrate that we're aware of that. We didn't tell you not to criticize... Just responded.
I apologize if I came off like a dick. That piece I linked just really struck a chord with me after I read it this morning, and I'm having a hard time expressing about why I'm so offended.
Well, he straight up called the accuser a liar. The evidence available to all of us at this time does not indicate that she was a liar. The statement released by Mr. Bryant also indicates that not even he believes that she is a liar. So yea, he was banned. Mr. Bryant released a statement that he had sex with a person who deeemed the encounter nonconsensual. Nothing about the about the bullshit we as a group have had to go through historically should change your understanding of that.
Of course he was banned I was too last week for something more extreme. We got history to prove it but you know who is a protected class in this country and online.
OP
OP
Not going to get into a credentials war when that has nothing to do with the topic. Whatever kind of unwritten norm exists regarding this, it seems to be violated fairly frequently.
If I were ever falsely accused of any crime, and it wouldn't have to be a sex crime, say I were falsely accused of attempting to murder someone, I'd want my defense attorney to bring up whatever they thought could increase my odds of acquittal. Everyone in this thread would too.
Saw your post before the edit. You nailed it tbh. I get wanting to defend your heroes, but damn. I guess this is Resetera's version of GAF's "keep your politics out of my videogames".
OP
OP
If I'm being honest, Jordan was better, and so was Kareem.
That message I quoted is the one he was banned for. That was his opinion based on the evidence.
Did he said she lied, if so, not in that message.
My intention wasn't to start a "credentials war," whatever that is, but I will infer from that response that the answer is no, you aren't an attorney.
Further, I'm not speaking about "unwritten norms." I'm speaking of statutory law and case law. So you would also be wrong in suggesting that "it seems to be violated fairly frequently." This is why I urged caution when talking about the specificities of legal proceedings: you're talking out of your ass here and it shows to anyone with knowledge otherwise, but to anyone else they are likely to take your inaccuracies at face value.
Ultimately I deleted it because I thought it's not the thread for it, and I think to be fair I need to read up on this case a lot more before I decide to get involved in this discussion.
OP
OP
The defense filed documents in court arguing for why those factors should have been admitted as evidence. The judge ruled that some of it would be admissible: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html
I'm not talking out of anything.
He was probably banned for extrapolating from white people have falsely accused people to this specific person lied about being raped. Besides the fact that casting doubt on rape accusations hasn't been particularly permissible here that's also simply not very good critical thinking.
What? He did where you quoted him.
He said she was clearly a liar. Point to the evidence showing she "obviously" lied.
