|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank,
Frank,
This is a great project. However, after doing some research, I believe that the police are being mislead in many cases with lies that influence them to make false arrest. For example, most all of the training manuals for rape investigations and domestic violence have been revised under the VAWA act.
The groups that have created the new investigation and arrest guidelines are exclusively feminist organizations. I'm not finding a single male organization that is being permitted to participate in the creation of these manuals. So, now the police are arresting males on the basis of bigoted arrest and investigation procedures.
For example, here is a rape investigation-training manual that teaches male-hate investigation and arrest techniques (requires Microsoft Word to view):
"Successfully Investigating Acquaintance Sexual Assault: A National Training Manual for Law Enforcement"
Developed by the National Center for Women & Policing, with support provided by the
Violence Against Women Office, Office of Justice Programs (Grant #97-WE-VX-K004)
This is a rape investigation manual that is intended to be used Nationally. The astute reader will find it to be one of the most biased pro-arrest male-hate manuals in America. Its assumptions of the need to create this manual are based on the false conclusions by researcher Mary Koss.
Glenn Sacks notes, " As I explained in three Daily Bruin articles (3/8/99, 4/13/99, and 11/9/99), the famous 1 in 4 figure comes from a 1985 survey by feminist Mary Koss which was sponsored by Ms. magazine. I wrote to Koss (12/3/99) and while she still defended her work she herself confirmed for me that her rape/attempted rape figure includes women who were not in any way forced to have sex but instead had sexual intercourse when [they] didn't want to because a man gave [them] alcohol or drugs.'"
To illustrate, how this false statistic was used to create male-hate arrest laws, the reader must make a careful study of this manual. It reveals that there is a toxicologist referenced in the manual. The toxicologist performed due diligence in making certain that a table was included that listed the side effects of alcohol. Nevertheless, there was a complete omission of any information that would train the officers on the side effects of ecstasy (GHB) or Rohypnol. This is a serious and inexcusable omission.
Here is why. The side effects of Rohypnol follow:
Less common
Anxiety; confusion (may be more common in the elderly); fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat; lack of memory of events taking place after benzodiazepine is taken (may be more common with triazolam); mental depression
Rare
Abnormal thinking, including disorientation, delusions (holding false beliefs that cannot be changed by facts), or loss of sense of reality; agitation; behavior changes, including aggressive behavior, bizarre behavior, decreased inhibition, or outbursts of anger; convulsions (seizures); hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there); hypotension (low blood pressure); muscle weakness; skin rash or itching; sore throat, fever, and chills; trouble in sleeping; ulcers or sores in mouth or throat (continuing); uncontrolled movements of body, including the eyes; unusual bleeding or bruising; unusual excitement, nervousness, or irritability; unusual tiredness or weakness (severe); yellow eyes or skin.
Here are the side effects of Xyrem (GHB):
The most common side effects of Xyrem® are nausea, dizziness, headache, sleep problems, confusion, vomiting, and bed-wetting. Tell your doctor if you develop these less common but possibly serious side effects: sleepwalking (confused behavior during the night that may include walking around and doing other activities while not aware of what you are doing), increased sleepiness during the day, snoring, you stop breathing for a short time while you sleep (sleep apnea), breathing problems, depression, and abnormal thinking.
Among toxicologists, it is common knowledge that as the intended safe dosage of a drug is exceeded that the presence of the side effects increase. This is like alcohol. One beer has minimal side effects. A case of beer that is rapidly guzzled can lead to death from alcohol poisoning.
Now notice in the manual how the suspected rape victim is painted in the light of somebody that the law enforcement sympathize with, and I agree that there should be a certain sympathy for an "actual" rape victim. Nevertheless, where there is a victim that has voluntarily abused a drug(s) that sympathy is inappropriate except when much stronger evidence reveals an actual rape.
Further, there is a plausible story line of how a male might use alcohol to rape a victim, yet there is a complete absence of any balance in presenting a female story line where she voluntarily consumes a fruit punch cocktail and then seduces the male. Only one view is presented. The absence of a balancing counter story is in it self is bigoted. It presumes that if any male shares an illegal drug with a woman that he must have intended to rape her. That of course is absurd.
Also, notice the following statement that states:
If the victim says that she voluntarily used alcohol or drugs and indicates that her assailant took advantage of her vulnerability, the successful investigator will therefore frame her use of alcohol, or other drugs, as corroborative evidence. This evidence should therefore serve as a way to support rather than challenge the victim’s credibility.
Woha! Hold on a minute. If the victim took the drugs she may have "Abnormal thinking, including disorientation, delusions (holding false beliefs that cannot be changed by facts), or loss of sense of reality; ...hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there).”
What did that say? HALLUCINATIONS!?!? What the hell is this? The officer is to "...frame her use of alcohol, or other drugs, as corroborative evidence!" So, clearly the female may hallucinate a rape, and the officer is supposed to accept her admission of taking a narcotic as evidence that the woman making the claim was raped. Am I the only one, or does anybody else see something wrong with this picture? This is only one example of what the Koss male hate statistics have led to.
Further, the training manual also advises the officer to tell the woman that they are to take the woman’s view and assume that she has been in fact raped when it states, “I know that this question is difficult to answer and I want you to know I am only asking you this question to get a clear picture of all the facts in this case. I am very sorry about what has happened to you and I do not think that you are responsible for what happened. Any questions I may ask regarding possible drug use by yourself and the offender serve only to better my understanding of what happened and will help me investigate and corroborate your case.”
So, when a woman claims that she has voluntarily abused a drug and claims she was raped that person is to assume that there was in fact a rape. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? That’s gone bro!
Then there is the issue that the woman abused the drug and may have in fact been responsible for seducing the male. Clearly, this would mean that the female should be criminally prosecuted for felony drug abuse. Yet the officer is advised to promise there will be no charges pressed for the admission when it states, "It is imperative that the officer informs the victim that this inquiry is not to establish any kind of blame and that the officer is not going to arrest the victim for illegal drug use."
Give me a break! There is a rape investigation where the woman voluntarily abuses a narcotic. That drug then creates serious side effects that include hallucinations or a state of a sleep walking like trance.
In addition, the woman could have easily lost her inhibitions and sought to seduce any male, and because there is a side affect of, "...delusions (holding false beliefs that cannot be changed by facts), or loss of sense of reality..." the female will insist on the rape regardless of any exonerating evidence and facts. Yet she is not to be held criminally liable if there is no physical evidence of an actual rape! In fact, they can claim that the man wore a condom and that because she believes she was raped that there was in fact a rape.
The result is a false arrest using male-hate investigations and arrest procedures that were created because of false male-hate statistics. These same sorts of lies can be found in the domestic violence training manuals. Radical feminists have used similar statistical lies to justify these male-hate based arrest procedures in false accusations of child abuse, domestic violence, stalking, and more. They also done the same thing using these male-hate statistics to severely undermine basic constitutional protections. The result is an epidemic of the false arrests of males. Clearly, there is a gender war being waged against men and men have been getting their asses handed to them on a platter! AU would be wise to hear the wake-up call.
This should be required reading for all men. They need to be made aware of how the police are being trained to make these arrest that are based on anti-male hate-laws.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I believe that the police are being mislead in many cases with lies that influence them to make false arrest. "
This was pretty much my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason that this project has only cleared men is that they are almost exclusively using DNA testing to overturn convictions. There are fewer cases involving women where DNA evidence left at the scene of the crime can clear the woman.
By using this data as evidence of male abuse by the legal system you are doing a disservice to those who are actually being wronged by the system. Your assumptions are no different in basis than those the DV/IPV industry spews using data only collected from women in shelters. It skews the data and all assumptions based on that data.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
