|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 24, @02:22PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
A large part of this story went unreported. The story only deals with those charges that were the result of plea bargaining.
The arson of two cars isn't addressed.
We don't know what the original charges against the man were, but I suspect that he was originally accused of arson.
So, while it is generally true that women are treated with kid glove by courts, I think that there is a lot to this story we don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Wrote: Fembots will probably spew garbage about how we don't know all the particulars of the case. Well we sure as hell know what the defendents pleaded to.
Then The Anonymous Coward wrote: ... I think that there is a lot to this story we don't know.
Well, Thomas, you sure called that one.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Thomas, you sure called that one.
They've gotten pretty easy, haven't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is nothing new with Plea Bargaining either, i.e. the victim gets no justice on a no-contest case, just to save the court-system some time and money, with the result that a dangerous criminal is turned loose on society due to a lazy penny-pinching (and likely in this case, misandrist) prosecutor.
Some states, like Michigan, have victim-protection laws which inform the victim before a plea-bargain is accepted, but they victim still has no say in the matter.
Likewise, blackmail cases are sometimes difficult to prosecute because the victims are understandably reluctant; however, the prosecuting attorney has a duty to protect the public, and this is another reason that prosecutors settle to avoid the hassles of coping with hostile witnesses etc.
The place to write would be the state Attorney General's office, asking them to appeal the verdict on the grounds of abuse of discretion, since the purpose of the law is to establish justice, while the prosecutor's decision to accept the plea agreement was based on sheer pragmatic concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @01:43AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep good call Thomas. This seems to be a common tactic now. The feminazi starts out pretending to sympathize then when any issue is raised it's minimized/excused and just waved away as not a big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This seems to be a common tactic now. The feminazi starts out pretending to sympathize
A very, very common tactic today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @09:15AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
The respondents to my post are absolute morons. I've noted the propensity of courts to give lighter sentences to women.
I am not a feminazi.
I am trying to warn you to be careful about what battles you fight. This is not a good issue to fight.
A large part of this story was omitted. You don't know what the original charges against the man were, and there is a very good possibility that the arson of the cars was part of those original charges. Plea bargaining generally indicates a reduction of the original charges.
Morons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @11:04AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably more likely that the respondents are used to having anonymous posters come here that have an agenda to push. It's also likely that they are used to anonymous posters coming on and stating they don't know all the facts without providing any evidence for this. An over reaction? Yes, but morons no, just touchy from experience.
You may not be a feminazi but I personally think that making a false allegation should hold much more of a penalty then arson or anything the man did. False allegations should be punished severly. One year is not enough, it's a joke.
On the positive side it was good that the investigators were able to work together and noticed the multiple charges and prosecute the women even if the results of the prosecution are not acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The respondents to my post are absolute morons. I've noted the propensity of courts to give lighter sentences to women.
Actually, it's the original poster that is an absolute moron. GIGO, mon frer, garbage in, garbage out. The propensity of courts to give lighter sentences to women is precisely the issue.
This bitch thought up the whole idea, laid out the plan, and gave instructions to an underling, probably some asswipe man who did it for a little head now and then. Maybe even for the vague promise of some "someday." She's a crime lord. A racketeer. A mobster. There is no moral difference - you tell me, who's more culpable, the hitman, or the one who hired the hitman?
In the eyes of the law both. In fact, more often than not, the hitman gets the plea to bring the one who ordered the hit to justice.
Unless, as we have seen here, the Don is a Dona.
I am not a feminazi.
Methinks you doth protest to much. At the very least you're a very biddable pawn of the pheminazis.
I am trying to warn you to be careful about what battles you fight. This is not a good issue to fight.
And why not? And which one is?
What sanctimonious bullshit. It's candy-assed milquetoasts like you that fucking paralyze the Men's movement. Oh my God! Can't oppose this! Some woman might get mad! Oh my God! Can't oppose that! Some woman might call us a name! Oh my God! Can't oppose the other! Some woman might make us put forth some effort! Well, it's back to watching the TV, scratching my balls, and muttering about what a crock of shit it is while your rights are being whittled away, eh?
Hope the slave collar is comfortable, asshole.
A large part of this story was omitted. You don't know what the original charges against the man were, and there is a very good possibility that the arson of the cars was part of those original charges. Plea bargaining generally indicates a reduction of the original charges.
And chances are, asswipe, if it was damning to the male it would have been included; it's generally omitted, by our lace-curtain censors, if it puts the woman in a bad light.
Use your brains. There's a whole type of reasoning called induction, as well as abductive reasoning. Proceed away from a strictly linear mindset, who knows, you may become enlightened.
Morons.
Well, you're obviously an authority on it, you chickenshit.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 26, @03:33AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo.
Tell us how you REALLY feel! (^_^)
You're never one to mince words.
Good!
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This cowardly anonymous poster is right guys! There is much about this story that we don't know. Inquiring minds, like myself, want to know more, such as:
1) A picture of this bitch so we can see what she looks like and be able to recognize her on sight.
2) Her address of residence just in case someone wishes to take the liberty of paying her a visit and insuring that she NEVER has the opportunity to do this again.
3) How many other men she has done this to, and how much money she has extorted in the past.
4) Which feminazi groups intervened in this case to get this bitch a slap on the wrist.
5) Which feminazi groups the POS D.A. Jan Scully belongs to.
6) Whether any of her victims have filed suit in civil court for damages.
7) Whether the POS D.A. Jan Scully has referred this matter to the Feds for federal prosecution! eg. Wire fraud, Fed. extortion statutes, mail fraud, RICO (there was a conspiracy), or other violations of federal law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 24, @02:45PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The system is set up them to do so.
feminism is sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The repugnancy of this plea bargain needs no eleboration here. I'm as sickened with this story as anyone here! NO JUSTICE!!! To all: Let's voice our outrage over this case loud and clear!
The POS prosecutors office, Jan Scully D.A. can be reached here:
http://da.saccounty.net/
The San Francisco Chronicle also ran the article. they can be reached at:
chronfeedback@sfchronicle.com
readerrep@sfchronicle.com
letters@sfchronicle.com
Please write and let the world know this is not acceptable, this is not justice...I am!
Addresses courtesy of "shaman_nation", a vocal men's activist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is known as the "badger game," which is defined as "The method of blackmailing by decoying a person into a compromising situation and extorting money by threats of exposure."
Basically, a woman initiates sex with a man and then her "husband" or boyfriend "accidentally" walks in (or the woman cries rape afterward) and threatens to make a big stink unless the man coughs up hush-money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If someone came up to you and said, "Give me $10,000 or I'll go to the police and claim you robbed a bank or murdered someone," you'd laugh at them. They would be incapable of producing any evidence, and so they would be no threat to you. You could go to the police and report them for extortion, and they might well be prosecuted.
For decades, women have gotten away with declaring that "No woman would accuse a man of rape unless he were guilty," and "woman who falsely accuse men of rape must not be prosecuted because doing so would discourage women who have been raped from coming forward."
All a woman has to do is threaten to falsely accuse a man and she is likely to get money. If her victims go to the police about it, there's a good chance they'll end up in jail. In any case, as we see here, the female will get off very easy if she's punished at all.
If a man victimizes a woman, the woman reports him and he goes to jail. If a woman victimizes a man, he either stays quiet or he tries to report her and he may very well go to jail. Women have far more power than men. The feminist system, all the governments of the industrialized world are utterly corrupt and evil.
Women claim that men have more power than women. The opposite is true to an extreme. A man might be able to hurt a woman, but all of society will come down on him if he does. Women know that they can attack men and, if the man dares to speak up, all of society will come down on him. A man's fists are nothing compared to all the power of society and all its police forces and weaponry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""""Women know that they can attack men and, if the man dares to speak up, all of society will come down on him.""""
Well, I am part of society and I will not come down on any man if he vigorously defends himself against a female's assaults.
And I just pray for the day I get selected for jury duty on such a case! he! he! :)
Bring it on!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I am part of society and I will not come down on any man if he vigorously defends himself against a female's assaults.
You're right. Not all of society. Just the great brunt of it.
This reminds me of the way in Japan a number of women have complained that some men grope them on the trains and a number of men have complained that some women have said that if the men didn't give the women money the women would claim that the men groped them and have the men arrested. The women now have all-women train cars, so they can be safe from groping men. The men, however, do not have all-men train cars that would allow them to be safe from women making false accusations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 24, @10:59PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, You see? THIS is one of the reasons I NEVER hang out or socialize with women. (Sorry ladies) But too me it is like being in an elevator with a rattle snake. It may bite you, it may not bite you, but who is willing to take the chance that it WILL bite you?
Not me.
I'll just take the stairs.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @07:24AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Someone once told me that the Reverend Billy Graham will not enter an elevator alone with a woman because of this type of thing. I don't know whether he actually practices this, but I'd bet he does. Any man, especially those of any prominence can't afford not to these days.
As you said, Thundercloud, all this and women wonder why men don't like them anymore. Can't imagine why, ladies, I have NO idea.
- Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @07:34AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
The man my mother married is a minister. My mom wanted to do respite care for troubled children but because of the threat that one of the children or a CPS worker might accuse my mom's husband of molestation they decided against it. Before he would even go to court his name would be dragged through the mud and he would lose his congregation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIS is one of the reasons I NEVER hang out or socialize with women.
Seriously, what's the point, if you're not out for sex, or there's no attraction?
To me, being "just friends" with an attractive woman means only having sex occasionally, otherwise she's using you for male companionship without giving tit-for-tat, and it's humiliating enough being taken for granted by women, without ASKING for it by giving it to them for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The solution is to do what Rob Lowe and Linda Tripp did, i.e. secretly videotape all of your intimate sessions with a woman if you're even slightly suspicous, and make sure there's the front page of that day's newspaper in the foreground to show it was made on that date or afterward. Then if she goes to the cops, you have the whole thing on tape-- as well as a threat that a friend of yours has a copy, and might just might publish it to clear your name in the public court, which will severely hurt her future love-life and tremendously HELP yours (since women love famous, unfairly-accused studs, while guys HATE exposed, vindictive sluts).
This reminds me of an incident in which a woman invited a guy to her house, and invited him to sit with her on the sofa; he busts a move and she responds, and one thing led to another; a half hour later or so she says, "before this goes any further, I need to get some sleep," and the guy leaves (their clothes never came off except for some expert titty-work).
The next day she tells the guy (via email) she's really pissed off at him for "getting physical" because "she had been drinking at a party" earlier that evening (but was able to drive home just fine) and she was "numb to that kind of thing anyway" (translation: she's a boozy, burned-out young slut who can't say "no"), and now she wanted to be with her old "long, lost" boyfriend.
The guy answers back in his own defense-- thus admitting the encounter, but not the exact content.
This could very well have resulted in a sexual-assault charge-- even rape, as well as a MUCH larger settlement in the guy's divorce later on (he was legally married and living with his wife at the time).
Now without documentation of some sort to the contrary, whose version do you think would be accepted?
The solution: even if you don't have a tape, BLUFF one, by saying that you that you made a tape of it, but can't find it-- and that you think you gave a copy to a friend but can't remember who etc.
(If such a tape would be illegal, ask for immunity in order to enter it into evidence, under your right to enter evidence on your own behalf which might prove helpful to you, protected penumbrally by your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination).
The mere CHANCE of such a tape existing (and thus proving her to be a perjuror), in addition to the "Pam and Tommy" factor of mass-distribution of the tape and video-file, will shut up even the most scornful woman, guaranteed.
(And if you DID make a tape, it might just "accidentally fall into the wrong hands" after the charges are dropped...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @04:09AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Any adult who reports a false allegation of sexual assult (or any crime for that matter) should be locked up for as long as the victim of the false allegation would be if they had actually commited the crime. This is really sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any adult who reports a false allegation of sexual assult (or any crime for that matter) should be locked up for as long as the victim of the false allegation would be if they had actually commited the crime. This is really sick.
I think this "equal jeopardy" used to be the case, i.e. that a false witness would be under the same jeopardy as the accused, however I don't think it's the case any longer due to the fact that politicians and prosecutors who want to claim to be "tough on crime" by railroading innocent scapegoats, and such "equal jeopardy" laws would compromise their supply of false witnesses which make such trumpery possible.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
