Support NeoGAF

[Reeks]

Evidence is not proof.
Alcohol is a drug.

 

[Tawpgun]

So let's be clear of the facts of this case, at least those reported in the stories.

1. Both parties were into each other, clearly. Making out at the bar. Girl was giving "sexual gestures" to her friend indicating she was gonna bone him. Girl checked the guy into her dorm. No footage after that that we've seen.

2. Girls roommate walks into the room while the guy is in the bathroom. The report says this was allegedly "during the attack". Roommate confronts the guy and the guy leaves.

3. Sexual assault is reported immediately. And the guy is charged with rape by use of drugs and a foreign object He is arrested 2 weeks later.

What we DON'T know. Is what the roommate saw (I guess this was never made public?) and what other evidence there is beyond what I've stated above.

No finger prints on this object? Was there a medical examination? Tox screen? It was rape aided by drugs but the drug in this case might just be alcohol. Was the girl passed out? Why did it take 2 weeks to arrest the guy?

We either don't have the full story or there is no full story. No evidence one way or another of what happened in that room before the roommate came in, and then we just have her eye witness testimony which is.... where?

It just doesn't seem like there's much to go on. And in these cases I think it's better to just throw the case out than to try and convince the jury "Your story" of the event. Innocent until proven guilty is a core principle of our justice system. And it seems this case didn't have enough evidence to even justify trying to go to jury.

 

[Keri]

He is factually innocent of "rape by use of drugs and sexual penetration by a foreign object." Which is what they said he was charged with in the article.

Still, even if you and I agree it's unlikely she was drugged, there isn't any proof of it, either way. Instead of saying he's "factually innocent" the more accurate description of the situation is to say "there is no proof he drugged her." That's really the only conclusive statement we can make, without including assumptions or our own personal guesses.

Good luck getting a jury, or even a room full of people to agree on exactly where that line lies, and when it blurs from being two drunken college kids having sex into rape.

Well, yeah. That's why the charges were dropped.

Here is what I can find on withdrawn consent in California:

I'm not sure what you are citing, but the definition of rape in California clearly includes sex with someone who is unconscious:

(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:

(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

So, it's pretty easy to think of a scenario where he's factually guilty of rape. At least as easy to think of scenarios where he isn't. If our basic guess about what happened is true, then it would all come down to: "Did he notice she'd passed out and continue?"

I'm not saying it's not a messy situation. It absolutely is and is exhibit A for not drunkenly hooking up with strangers... but IMO, this case never should have went as far as it did.

Well, it got this far, because the prosecution had a witness who was willing to testify that she walked in on the assault. Without that witness, the prosecution probably wouldn't have touched the case. From the perspective of the prosecution, this was one of the "better" cases, until that additional evidence was discovered.

 

[KingV]

So let's be clear of the facts of this case, at least those reported in the stories.

1. Both parties were into each other, clearly. Making out at the bar. Girl was giving "sexual gestures" to her friend indicating she was gonna bone him. Girl checked the guy into her dorm. No footage after that that we've seen.

2. Girls roommate walks into the room while the guy is in the bathroom. The report says this was allegedly "during the attack". Roommate confronts the guy and the guy leaves.

3. Sexual assault is reported immediately. And the guy is charged with rape by use of drugs and a foreign object He is arrested 2 weeks later.

What we DON'T know. Is what the roommate saw (I guess this was never made public?) and what other evidence there is beyond what I've stated above.

No finger prints on this object? Was there a medical examination? Tox screen? It was rape aided by drugs but the drug in this case might just be alcohol. Was the girl passed out? Why did it take 2 weeks to arrest the guy?

We either don't have the full story or there is no full story. No evidence one way or another of what happened in that room before the roommate came in, and then we just have her eye witness testimony which is.... where?

It just doesn't seem like there's much to go on. And in these cases I think it's better to just throw the case out than to try and convince the jury "Your story" of the event. Innocent until proven guilty is a core principle of our justice system. And it seems this case didn't have enough evidence to even justify trying to go to jury.

The "foreign objects" were probably his fingers. So yes they would have fingerprints, but not in the way you are expecting.

 

[Zornack]

Still, even if you and I agree it's unlikely she was drugged, there isn't any proof of it, either way. Instead of saying he's "factually innocent" the more accurate description of the situation is to say "there is no proof he drugged her." That's really the only conclusive statement we can make, without including assumptions or our own personal guesses.

He is factually innocent until proof of wrongdoing is provided.

 

[Keri]

He is factually innocent until proof of wrongdoing is provided.

I'll just quote myself from earlier in the thread:

I know you're not going to like this answer, because it will sound like useless "legalese," but there's a difference between being factually innocent and being legally innocent. You may have noticed that verdicts aren't written to find people "innocent" they are written to find them "not guilty." It's because the law judges, only, whether there is enough proof of a crime and it recognizes that a lack of proof, doesn't equate with actual innocence.

He's legally innocent. The Court almost never makes a determination of "factual innocence." (Although, I think there's is actually a mechanism in some situations, where a Defendant found "not guilty" can request a formal finding of innocence...)

 

[KingV]

Still, even if you and I agree it's unlikely she was drugged, there isn't any proof of it, either way. Instead of saying he's "factually innocent" the more accurate description of the situation is to say "there is no proof he drugged her." That's really the only conclusive statement we can make, without including assumptions or our own personal guesses.

You cannot prove a negative. Saying there is no proof is as good as it gets for saying he is innocent. I would there isn't even really any evidence at all beyond the roommate, and a whole lot of other evidence showing that it was consensual. I cannot prove that you are not a serial killer, either, but I'm not running around GAF saying "We don't know if Keri is a serial killer." There is no proof or evidence, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

He is legally innocent, and unless somebody can give some sort of compelling evidence that something happened other than a drunken hookup or that any part of the "he drugged me" story is true, we should give him the benefit of the doubt too.

I'm not sure what you are citing, but the definition of rape in California clearly includes sex with someone who is unconscious:

It was a summary from an attorney in California's website. I'm assuming it was summarizing case law. It might not be accurate, but until I see something that says otherwise, I will assume it is mostly accurate.

Even the direct reading of the law itself says that they have to know she is unconscious. If you're both in a dark dorm room after heavy drinking, and it started out where she was fully awake, I personally would buy that it could take some reasonable amount of time before the other person fully comprehended what happened.

So, it's pretty easy to think of a scenario where he's factually guilty of rape. At least as easy to think of scenarios where he isn't. If our basic guess about what happened is true, then it would all come down to: "Did he notice she'd passed out and continue?"

I agree. Good luck establishing that. Especially because when the roommate confronted him, probably to tell him she was clearly passing out or now was too drunk to have sex and could not consent, he did the right thing and left. That's probably the only moment when you can say for sure he knew that she was passed out, or too inebriated to consent. Arguably, he could have started having clearly consensual sex with her, she passed out in the middle, and still no crime occurred.

It's likely that neither person actually remembers what happened in clear detail.

Well, it got this far, because the prosecution had a witness who was willing to testify that she walked in on the assault. Without that witness, the prosecution probably wouldn't have touched the case. From the perspective of the prosecution, this was one of the "better" cases, until that additional evidence was discovered.

The prosecution, and the school should have looked at this additional evidence before bringing charges or suspending him. Especially because the school had the tapes, and there was a two week delay before arresting him.

 

[Zornack]

I'll just quote myself from earlier in the thread:



He's legally innocent. The Court almost never makes a determination of "factual innocence." (Although, I think there's is actually a mechanism in some situations, where a Defendant found "not guilty" can request a formal finding of innocence...)

The court made no determination, the case was thrown out.

 

[Dude Abides]

The court made no determination, the case was thrown out.

Wrong. The court determined that no reasonable jury could conclude he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Zornack]

Wrong. The court determined that no reasonable jury could conclude he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No determination as to his innocence.

 

[Dude Abides]

No determination as to his innocence.

Correct. So you were incorrect to say he was factually innocent and Keri was right.

 

[KingV]

Correct. So you were incorrect to say he was factually innocent and Keri was right.

Well technically you cannot ever prove you are factually inncocent.

You very well could be a criminal mastermind, I just can't prove it.

However, there is no evidence that he committed a crime other than hearsay, and the charges are contradicted by video. So a reasonable person can conclude that he is probably not a rapist.

Keri keeps suggesting that he is possibly still a rapist, which i will concede that she is correct, in that there is a non-zero chance that he raped her because there always can be something that happened in the room. However, from where I stand, it's looking very very unlikely that he drugged her and raped her.

Is it possible? Yes, it is possible in the same way that we cannnot factually prove that Pizzagate is not real , that Hillary did not order the murder of Seth Rich, or that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. But a reasonable person can look at those stories and say "there is not much compelling evidence here, I'm pretty sure this is untrue".

A reasonable person can look at the videos here, read the testimony of the Uber Driver, and say "she doesn't look like she had had date rape drugs, she was clearly into the guy at the bar, she signaled to her friends that she was going to have sex with him, and the prosecutors dropped the charges, indicating there wasn't any other compelling evidence" and then say "you know what, he probably didn't rape her".

 

[Keri]

You cannot prove a negative. Saying there is no proof is as good as it gets for saying he is innocent. I would there isn't even really any evidence at all beyond the roommate, and a whole lot of other evidence showing that it was consensual. I cannot prove that you are not a serial killer, either, but I'm not running around GAF saying "We don't know if Keri is a serial killer." There is no proof or evidence, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

Right, saying "there's no proof of guilt" is the best the law offers and it shows he was given the benefit of the doubt. I get what you're saying, that this is the best case scenario for him, but still the people who say: "We don't know for sure if he's factually innocent" are correct. You're taking issue with others making a factually true statement, because you disagree with how they've assessed the situation and believe we should all assume legal innocence is the same as factual innocence, but there's no reason anyone has to do that. The law doesn't even make this assumption - it calls it a day, after finding "no evidence of guilt." Also, if we were forced to apply "innocent until proven guilty" in all judgments outside a courtroom, we'd all be morally required to believe OJ is factually innocent, because he was found "not guilty."

Look, just to bypass a possible misunderstanding, I don't think this man should be mistreated or denied opportunities, because of this. He is legally innocent. But there's no reason why people can't speculate whether something actually happened and those people who do that, are not necessarily wrong or, at the least, there is no conclusive evidence they're wrong.

 

[KingV]

Right, saying "there's no proof of guilt" is the best the law offers and it shows he was given the benefit of the doubt. I get what you're saying, that this is the best case scenario for him, but still the people who say: "We don't know for sure if he's factually innocent" are correct. You're taking issue with others making a factually true statement, because you disagree with how they've assessed the situation and believe we should all assume legal innocence is the same as factual innocence, but there's no reason anyone has to do that. The law doesn't even make this assumption - it calls it a day, after finding "no evidence of guilt." Also, if we were forced to apply "innocent until proven guilty" in all judgments outside a courtroom, we'd all be morally required to believe OJ is factually innocent, because he was found "not guilty."

Look, just to bypass a possible misunderstanding, I don't think this man should be mistreated or denied opportunities, because of this. He is legally innocent. But there's no reason why people can't speculate whether something actually happened and those people who do that, are not necessarily wrong or, at the least, there is no conclusive evidence they're wrong.

Yes, you cannot technically prove a negative.

So do you personally think he likely drugged and raped her, then? If so, based on what?

If not, then why not say, "hey, I don't think this guy probably did anything illegal." Or at least "there is no evidence that we know of indicating that she was drugged".

If you concede one of the above, what basis is there to assume that there is a reasonably high chance that he might have raped her? The fact that he was accused, even though the available evidence seems to contradict everything we know about the accusation?

Edit: I agree on your point about OJ, many are reasonably sure he is guilty, even though he was acquitted. I just don't see that level of evidence here.

 

[Jerry]

He is legally innocent. But there's no reason why people can't speculate whether something actually happened and those people who do that, are not necessarily wrong or, at the least, there is no conclusive evidence they're wrong.

Sure but I find it very strange that the best method we, as a society, have for proving/disproving the actions of another doesn't seem to be good enough for some people. There is very clear agenda pushing on both sides here.

 

[Keri]

So do you personally think he likely drugged and raped her, then? If so, based on what?

If not, then why not say, "hey, I don't think this guy probably did anything illegal." Or at least "there is no evidence that we know of indicating that she was drugged".

If you concede one of the above, what basis is there to assume that there is a reasonably high chance that he might have raped her? The fact that he was accused, even though the available evidence seems to contradict everything we know about the accusation?

I think its unlikely he drugged her, but that it's definitely still possible he technically committed rape, because it probably all boils down to whether or not he noticed her passing out. And I think the two options that exist in this scenario (either him not noticing at all or noticing and deciding to finish) are equally probable and neither is contradicted by any evidence.

 

[Dude Abides]

Well technically you cannot ever prove you are factually inncocent.

Sure you can. If there were video or credible eyewitnesses that he wasn't even in the dorm at the time of the alleged assault, or a video or tape showing she consented, that would support a finding of factual interest.

The problem here is people claiming to know for certain what happened in the dorm room based on video that wasn't taken in the room.

Sure but I find it very strange that the best method we, as a society, have for proving/disproving the actions of another doesn't seem to be good enough for some people. There is very clear agenda pushing on both sides here.

It's only strange because you don't understand how burdens of proof work and want to push your agenda.

 

[Future]

What's the point of arguing about what he could have did. Anyone can do anything in a closed room. And anyone can accuse anyone of anything. You need some sort of proof to make anything hold any weight

The accusation was the cause of investigation. But factual evidence contradicted some expectations presented an alternate likely story. Case was thrown out, and dude deserves to move on with his life without people thinking "but he could of...". Of course he could have. And she could be lying. No one knows anything

 

[Reeks]

What's the point of arguing about what he could have did. Anyone can do anything in a closed room. And anyone can accuse anyone of anything. You need some sort of proof to make anything hold any weight

The accusation was the cause of investigation. But factual evidence contradicted some expectations presented an alternate likely story. Case was thrown out, and dude deserves to move on with his life without people thinking "but he could of...". Of course he could have. And she could be lying. No one knows anything

Statistically speaking, rape is more likely.

Cases are thrown out when a jury probably won't convict. Juries often side with alleged perpetrators because of the exact statements loading this thread. Doesn't mean he's innocent. Doesn't mean she's not lying, very true. But one of those things happens often and one happens rarely. And we dont know what the roomate saw, so it's more "he said, they said."

 

[Izuna]

What more does it take for the guy to prove that he didn't Rape this woman? Is the red flag of being reported all there is?

It's very likely, regardless of what did happen, that what happened in the video wasn't part of the girl's story. The guy is very lucky that this recording is there.

Back to Alcohol. People do what they regret when they have it. Including the girl and guy. If that's not taken into account the then drunken sex let's the girl to always press charges for rape in every event that it happens.

You have she and her said vs. he said + evidence to show that she wanted to bone him.

There isn't much a prosecution could go on anyway.

 

[KingV]

I think its unlikely he drugged her, but that it's definitely still possible he technically committed rape, because it probably all boils down to whether or not he noticed her passing out. And I think the two options that exist in this scenario (either him not noticing at all or noticing and deciding to finish) are equally probable and neither is contradicted by any evidence.

I think fundamentally we just have a different amount of faith in the innate morality of the human race (or at least men).

To say that it is "equally probable" that he didn't realize she was passing out or he knew she was passed out and just said "fuck it, I'm not stopping" is basically saying that 50% of men would choose to continue to have sex with an unresponsive woman.

I just fundamentally don't think that is the case. Of course that is colored by the fact that I wouldn't do it, and figure most of my friends wouldn't do so either.

My gut says most people wouldn't do that, and there's nothing really suggesting that this guy is any more predatory than the average guy, so why would I think this guy is more likely to choose to continue to have sex with an unconscious woman than the average guy on the street?

 

[Snarky(HEART)]

I think fundamentally we just have a different amount of faith in the innate morality of the human race (or at least men).

To say that it is "equally probable" that he didn't realize she was passing out or he knew she was passed out and just said "fuck it, I'm not stopping" is basically saying that 50% of men would choose to continue to have sex with an unresponsive woman.

I just fundamentally don't think that is the case. Of course that is colored by the fact that I wouldn't do it, and figure most of my friends wouldn't do so either.

My gut says most people wouldn't do that, and there's nothing really suggesting that this guy is any more predatory than the average guy, so why would I think this guy is more likely to choose to continue to have sex with an unconscious woman than the average guy on the street?

You're ignoring the fact that the world and this country has severe problems with rape culture, and that yes, there are many men who don't think having sex with an unconscious woman after she consented is rape.

There are many men who don't think having sex with a an unconscious woman after she consented is rape.

A guy raped my best friend after she fell asleep like a couple weeks ago.

The average guy on the street very well might do this.

 

[Future]

Statistically speaking, rape is more likely.

Cases are thrown out when a jury probably won't convict. Juries often side with alleged perpetrators because of the exact statements loading this thread. Doesn't mean he's innocent. Doesn't mean she's not lying, very true. But one of those things happens often and one happens rarely. And we dont know what the roomate saw, so it's more "he said, they said."

Who gives a shit about statistics. If you were in his shoes, you wouldn't want statistics to have any bearing (and thankfully it doesn't in the rule of law). Dude is a human being, not a number, and deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. She equally deserves people to respect the accusation. By not at the expense of the accusee without evidence.

Man. It truly sucks for that guy if he was truly innocent, but everyone he knows will cite statistics and immediately accept the accusation. Imagine being put in that position. Just a side of human nature I guess.

 

[benicillin]

As always many on GAF are way more concerned about the infinitesimally smaller chance of men being knowingly and falsely accused of rape than the disgustingly high statistics of actual rape victims that go unreported and unprosecuted.

 

[KingV]

You're ignoring the fact that the world and this country has severe problems with rape culture, and that yes, there are many men who don't think having sex with an unconscious woman after she consented is rape.

There are many men who don't think having sex with a an unconscious woman after she consented is rape.

A guy raped my best friend after she fell asleep like a couple weeks ago.

The average guy on the street very well might do this.

50% though? Like it's a coin flip? 1/2 of guys thinks that is just fine?

Because that's what "equally probable" implies.

I would call for receipts on that.

The closest I can find suggests it's more like 1 in 7 or 8.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.refinery29.com/amp/2017/04/148747/men-dont-understand-consent-study

Still too high, yes. But why is this guy given coin flip odds? What evidence is there that he, specifically, is 3x-4x more likely to think sex without consent is ok than the average young adult male?

 

[Izuna]

As always many on GAF are way more concerned about the infinitesimally smaller chance of men being knowingly and falsely accused of rape than the disgustingly high statistics of actual rape victims that go unreported and unprosecuted.

In the context of this thread, it makes sense.

 

[Keri]

I think fundamentally we just have a different amount of faith in the innate morality of the human race (or at least men).

To say that it is "equally probable" that he didn't realize she was passing out or he knew she was passed out and just said "fuck it, I'm not stopping" is basically saying that 50% of men would choose to continue to have sex with an unresponsive woman.

I just fundamentally don't think that is the case. Of course that is colored by the fact that I wouldn't do it, and figure most of my friends wouldn't do so either.

My gut says most people wouldn't do that, and there's nothing really suggesting that this guy is any more predatory than the average guy, so why would I think this guy is more likely to choose to continue to have sex with an unconscious woman than the average guy on the street?

Yeah, I think that's an accurate assessment of our different opinions. While I generally like to think the best of people, I think there are quite a few worrying statistics about rape, that suggests this behavior isn't all that uncommon and, perhaps, even less uncommon in the context of college. I think it's possible for someone to be a nice guy in other respects, but to have a blind spot or fundamental misunderstanding, when it comes to sex and consent. I think it's probable a 20 year old (possibly drunk) guy in that situation would think: "What's the harm if I finish?"

EDIT to add reference to him being possibly drunk, himself.

 

[KingV]

As always many on GAF are way more concerned about the infinitesimally smaller chance of men being knowingly and falsely accused of rape than the disgustingly high statistics of actual rape victims that go unreported and unprosecuted.

It is not an infinitesimally small chance in this particular instance.

One can simultaneously believe that rape is a bigger problem than false rape accusations, in general, while also thinking this case, specifically, is a false rape accusation (intentional or not) and feel like this specific person is a victim here, and was treated unfairly.

Whether that's because of the $20K in bond + lawyer fees he will likely never recover, the missed semester in school, or the lack of wisdom in publishing his name next to accused rapist when the evidence in the case was poor.

 

[mckmas8808]

So is the next step the suing of this girl for the falsification of rape?

It really really should.

 

[kiunchbb]

You know, except for all the successful businessmen, athletes and literal celebrities that keep on trucking even when tens of women speak out against them.

This thread is an embarrassment.

uh, except for all the people that get off scot free from actual, very likely or even proven rape charges?

and yes I have a stake in how shitty false rape accusations are too, my brother was a victim of one in college and he was kicked out for a semester. But once the evidence started coming in and it was clear that it was fabricated he was allowed to return with lowered tuition, but yeah I'm sure he would have preferred a bullet in the head instead.

Oops, I meant to say "convicted".

 

[Ketkat]

It really really should.

It shouldn't because there's no evidence of that she was lying. That is not what this decided in any way. I really don't know how many times this needs to be said.

 

[Lionel Richie]

As always many on GAF are way more concerned about the infinitesimally smaller chance of men being knowingly and falsely accused of rape than the disgustingly high statistics of actual rape victims that go unreported and unprosecuted.

Both things are problematic. Yeah the second is way more frequent than the first one sadly, but are we supposed to just ignore that this dude was going to spend close to a decade in jail for something he didn't do (by the looks of it) if it wasn't for a deus ex machina as fuck camera being in play?

 

[mckmas8808]

It shouldn't because there's no evidence of that she was lying. That is not what this decided in any way. I really don't know how many times this needs to be said.

Was she or was she not attack as stated previously? All the evidence points to her "not" being attacked.

 

[Ketkat]

Was she or was she not attack as stated previously? All the evidence points to her "not" being attacked.

No, what this decided is that there isn't enough evidence to move forward with the case. It created a reasonable doubt, but it didn't prove that she was lying. It very well could still have happened, there's just no concrete evidence they can point to in court so they're not going to keep it going there. And because it could have still happened, they can't say that she was lying because its not provable that she is.

Like, do you really think its not possible in the slightest that something could have happened once they made it to her dorm?

 

[benicillin]

Was she or was she not attack as stated previously? All the evidence points to her "not" being attacked.

No one knows, and there was enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt and get the case thrown out. The system worked as intended.

Sadly this also happens all the time in rape cases, which is why so many of them are thrown out and people get away with it, and is also why victims of rape rarely come forward. As this thread is evidence of, people are really willing to assume the victim is lying or "regret it" despite all statistics stating otherwise.

The case was thrown out, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make him innocent or guilty.

 

[Rktk]

As always many on GAF are way more concerned about the infinitesimally smaller chance of men being knowingly and falsely accused of rape than the disgustingly high statistics of actual rape victims that go unreported and unprosecuted.

Hopefully you don't ever end up on a jury, rather than looking at the individual case you would rather have statistics determine whether the guy is a rapist or not.

 

[Snarky(HEART)]

Hopefully you don't ever end up on a jury, rather than looking at the individual case you would rather have statistics determine whether the guy is a rapist or not.

Except that person made absolutely no declarations about this specific case.

It's very obvious from looking at this thread that many guys on GAF are way more concerned with being falsely accused of rape then they are with the much worse problem of women getting raped .

 

[benicillin]

Hopefully you don't ever end up on a jury, rather than looking at the individual case you would rather have statistics determine whether the guy is a rapist or not.

If most of the people in this thread ended up on a jury I don't think a rapist would ever get prosecuted, so in that sense I guess GAF is an accurate reflection of America.

 

[Rktk]

Except that person made absolutely no declarations about this specific case.

It's very obvious from looking at this thread that many guys on GAF are way more concerned with being falsely accused of rape then they are with the much worse problem of women getting raped .

Actually they did.

Wow this topic went to garbage really quickly. Whole lot of people here don't seem to understand the difference between not enough evidence to prosecute (a sadly common problem) and her falsifying rape claims (something that did not happen.)

Or you know, consent.

I disagree with the determination the guy is guilty. I agree cases of false accusation are a very small number.

 

[Reeks]

Who gives a shit about statistics. If you were in his shoes, you wouldn't want statistics to have any bearing (and thankfully it doesn't in the rule of law). Dude is a human being, not a number, and deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. She equally deserves people to respect the accusation. By not at the expense of the accusee without evidence.

Man. It truly sucks for that guy if he was truly innocent, but everyone he knows will cite statistics and immediately accept the accusation. Imagine being put in that position. Just a side of human nature I guess.

We should all give a shit about statistics. Nothing you said after that contradicts what I said. I and others have adressed these points many times in the thread.

 

[KingV]

No one knows, and there was enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt and get the case thrown out. The system worked as intended.

Sadly this also happens all the time in rape cases, which is why so many of them are thrown out and people get away with it, and is also why victims of rape rarely come forward. As this thread is evidence of, people are really willing to assume the victim is lying or "regret it" despite all statistics stating otherwise.

The case was thrown out, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make him innocent or guilty.

No, the video evidence showing that she was in possession of her faculties makes it clear that her story was not entirely accurate.

If the story was "I was cool with him coming back with me, and then he drugged me in my dorm", then why was the case thrown out? If that was the story, then we would expect to see things looking "normal" on all of the surveillance.

I won't call her a liar, because I think it's neither her nor there. But it certainly looks like she was mistaken as to whether or not she had been drugged with an illegal substance (apart from the alcohol that I assume she knew she was drinking illegally when she went into a bar underage).

As for the statistics, if 2% of rape accusations are false (either maliciously or not), then we should expect 1 in 50 rape newsstories to actually not be rapes. Considering that it's far more salacious and clickbait worthy to report "false rapes", I would argue that we might even expect more than 2% of rape stories that rise to the level of the public zeitgeist to actually be false rape stories since likely the vast majority of even prosecuted rapes probably slide through the news unnoticed by GAF or social media.

 

[GrandHarrier]

The case was thrown out, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make him innocent or guilty.

Actually he is innocent by that standard because you're innocent until proven guilty. That is the standard by which our legal system operates. You're also correct that the validity of her statements and accusations aren't being called into question either, since it didn't go to trial and no one made a judgement on their merits.

 

[benicillin]

Actually he is innocent by that standard because you're innocent until proven guilty. That is the standard by which our legal system operates. You're also correct that the validity of her statements and accusations aren't being called into question either, since it didn't go to trial and no one made a judgement on their merits.

He's legally innocent in the sense that he wasn't convicted, yes, but I wouldn't feel comfortable saying "he's innocent" as in he definitely 100% didn't do it or "he's guilty" as in he 100% did, since I'm just a dude on the Internet who read a news story.

 

[Dude Abides]

It really really should.

Yeah right. This guy doesn't want to be deposed about what happened in that dorm room for the chance at getting the $50 this girl probably has to her name. The real world isn't r/theredpill

 

[Relentless 757]

As always many on GAF are way more concerned about the infinitesimally smaller chance of men being knowingly and falsely accused of rape than the disgustingly high statistics of actual rape victims that go unreported and unprosecuted.

This is generally true, however, context matters. And we have some details in this instance.

In reality, no one can really know, except for those who were present. The video evidence is enough to introduce doubt, in this circumstance.

 

[ShironRedshift]

No, what this decided is that there isn't enough evidence to move forward with the case. It created a reasonable doubt, but it didn't prove that she was lying. It very well could still have happened, there's just no concrete evidence they can point to in court so they're not going to keep it going there. And because it could have still happened, they can't say that she was lying because its not provable that she is.

Like, do you really think its not possible in the slightest that something could have happened once they made it to her dorm?

No one knows, and there was enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt and get the case thrown out. The system worked as intended.

Sadly this also happens all the time in rape cases, which is why so many of them are thrown out and people get away with it, and is also why victims of rape rarely come forward. As this thread is evidence of, people are really willing to assume the victim is lying or "regret it" despite all statistics stating otherwise.

The case was thrown out, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make him innocent or guilty.

Yeah, it's kinda terrifying reading through this thread how many people either don't seem to understand or don't care about the difference between a case being thrown out due to lack of evidence vs. being found not guilty vs. whether a person actually is innocent or guilty of the crime. Those are all different things, but they're being conflated like crazy. Like... people get upset discussion the subject of false accusations, but then they do the same against the plaintiff in this case (making a claim against her they have no proof of, that she's intentionally lying and made it all up, which is not what the court is saying--just that there is not enough evidence to proceed and that it's impossible to know what actually happened) because they don't appreciate the difference.

 

[KingV]

He's legally innocent in the sense that he wasn't convicted, yes, but I wouldn't feel comfortable saying "he's innocent" as in he definitely 100% didn't do it or "he's guilty" as in he 100% did, since I'm just a dude on the Internet who read a news story.

But you are comfortable saying that he probably did it because of statistics?

Or alternatively, if he didn't do it, but he was falsely accused, that's actually not a problem worth discussing because some other guy is a rapist and got away with it?

I don't think anyone in this thread isn't saying that college rape isn't a problem.

But even if only 2% of accused rapists are falsely accused, that's still going to be a pretty big number (1700 or so in an average year). In the US, that's going to be about 60% more than the number of people killed by police in an average year, for the sake of comparison. And most of us can acknowledge that the police kill far too many people to be an acceptable number.

Yet somehow, this other miscarriage of justice (lesser than being killed, for sure, but still a big deal to those falsely accused) is too small to even acknowledge as being a problem at all?

Or maybe both are problems, and both should be addressed in some capacity.

 

[benicillin]

But you are comfortable saying that he probably did it because of statistics?

Or alternatively, if he didn't do it, but he was falsely accused, that's actually not a problem worth discussing because some other guy is a rapist and got away with it?

I don't think anyone in this thread isn't saying that college rape isn't a problem.

But even if only 2% of accused rapists are falsely accused, that's still going to be a pretty big number (1700 or so in an average year). In the US, that's going to be about 60% more than the number of people killed by police in an average year, for the sake of comparison. And most of us can acknowledge that the police kill far too many people to be an acceptable number.

Yet somehow, this other miscarriage of justice (lesser than being killed, for sure, but still a big deal to those falsely accused) is too small to even acknowledge as being a problem at all?

Or maybe both are problems, and both should be addressed in some capacity.

I never said he probably did it. Keep tilting at the windmill though man.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

It shouldn't because there's no evidence of that she was lying. That is not what this decided in any way. I really don't know how many times this needs to be said.

She kind of dragged his name through the mud.

If I was him, I'd be trying to get a payday. Like almost anyone else.

 

[Quixzlizx]

But you are comfortable saying that he probably did it because of statistics?

Or alternatively, if he didn't do it, but he was falsely accused, that's actually not a problem worth discussing because some other guy is a rapist and got away with it?

I don't think anyone in this thread isn't saying that college rape isn't a problem.

But even if only 2% of accused rapists are falsely accused, that's still going to be a pretty big number (1700 or so in an average year). In the US, that's going to be about 60% more than the number of people killed by police in an average year, for the sake of comparison. And most of us can acknowledge that the police kill far too many people to be an acceptable number.

Yet somehow, this other miscarriage of justice (lesser than being killed, for sure, but still a big deal to those falsely accused) is too small to even acknowledge as being a problem at all?

Or maybe both are problems, and both should be addressed in some capacity.

It doesn't really matter whether he believes the guy did it or not, as long as he doesn't believe that people should be convicted of rape and sent to prison despite the presence of reasonable doubt.

It's not a black-and-white choice. You can believe "I think he probably did/didn't do it, but it's not a scenario the justice system can handle with the available evidence."