My Take on the Cornell Thing
Pressure from a civil suit has prompted the District Attorney to reexamine the case against the 7 Cornell students who allegedly raped a classmate in 2024.
There are a couple of facts which tell the unspoken story. The victim went to the police to file a report on the matter. According to the police, she claimed nothing criminal had happened. I'll bet that's not exactly right. The correct wording should be 'According to police, nothing that she claimed happened was criminal.' Obviously the woman claimed something criminal had happened, otherwise why go to the police? The "nothing criminal had happened" was the police's determination based on her statement.
She said she had willingly taken drugs and subsequently consented to group sex. According to New York law, taking drugs does not invalidate consent. That's the rub, because it really seems like the next day she was under the impression that she did not have the agency to give her consent, and their pressure put undue influence on her.
Was she "brutally raped and beaten for 7 hours" as some claim? I doubt it, since that would be cut and dry evidence of a felony. But the absence of a judicial verdict seems to give the hysterics carte blanche to spin any narrative to justify their campaign of extrajudicial justice.
It's really terrible all around, and I'm not trying to exonerate these guys. As with Graham Platner, my desire is for the accused to have their day in court, with discovery. A recent TV show had a reporter ask a lawyer if he would defend Hitler. My answer would be a resounding 'yes' because I would not want to see anyone get convicted without legal representation, and that goes for de facto convictions in the court of public opinion.
Comments
Let's take another example, for simplicity.
I willingly drink a lot of alcohol. I drive home, causing a deadly wreck on the way.
No, I didn't intentionally kill anyone, but I intentionally drank a lot of booze. Guilty in criminal court, hammered in a civil suit. Correctly.
No means no. For sex or beating. Therein lies the question. Was her ingesting of drugs just "asking for it"?
And yes, even Hitler deserved legal representation.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp When you say "No means no
When you say "No means no. For sex or beating" you have introduced a lot of assumptions not in evidence. As I wrote, if she had really been beaten wouldn't that be evidence of a crime? So now you are introducing a third assumption which is that the police refused to charge the felony despite the evidence. And you can't even assert that she said "no" because the police determined nothing criminal had transpired. She DID give her consent. The problem is she was out of her mind. Should New York change the law?
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
No means no
is the law. Not assumption.
A beating requires evidence. Not assumption.
I am growing tired of the defense of temporary insanity.
I am in complete agreement with your position on this case, and the law is on our side.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Thanks for the clarification
I wasn't reading you correctly. It's really mind boggling how much assumptions have driven this narrative. The victim's statement in 2024 indicated she refused anal sex and that request was honored. She opened the door to let the third man in the room. When she was tired and wanted to sleep, everything ended. If this was rape they need to re-define consent.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
"TV show had a reporter ask a lawyer if he would defend Hitler."
Clearly, Judgment At Nuremberg is a criminally-underpublicized film.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Sexual assault is more common than anyone would like to pretend
Or, if you want it in plain English, there's a lot of rape going around.
Maybe all of the male sexual assaulters will be reincarnated as women. That would be appropriate.
"We grow old, but we don't grow up." -- Grace Slick
That's the doctrine, I don't buy it.
What I see is moral panic for the crowd that assumes itself too good for moral panic.
Here are some of the best things I've seen pertinent to it, though I could share more if my primary computer weren't presently unavailable:
https://www.sott.net/article/370791-Burn-the-warlock-MeToo-has-morphed-i...
https://www.sott.net/article/366469-The-new-prudes-Viewing-all-men-as-pr...
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/04/male-rape-in-america-a-new-stud...
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
That is true
I didn't want this article give the impression that I think "boys will be boys" etc. I am all for prosecuting every rape to the extent of the law. But in this case, the law says she consented to taking drugs, and then she willingly engaged in group sex. That's not a crime. If you think taking drugs removes a person's capacity to consent then change the law so we can prosecute every single man who has ever had sex with an inebriated woman (and of course we need to dismiss the guy's intoxication level).
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”