David Baker arrested

[aleshanee]

......

And who pray tell decides if they were a willing participant?

In the end, the Lord is the judge. However, in the meantime, you would hope for honesty on the part of the woman.

according to the laws and standards currently in place - the validity of complaints and reports of sexual abuse - sexual harassment and rape are to be evaluated by reasonable people or good character who are also of the same gender as the victim.... .... (just like the accusations against the accused are to be judged by a jury of his peers)....

but how often does that happen where a group of women make the judgement about whether another women claiming she was raped should be believed?...... ... .....if you look at some of the posts on the forum so far ... (then add that to things said about me and a couple of others here in the past)..... and you can see what happens when women not only come down on the side of other women in a case like this but simply give them the benefit of the doubt....

 

[Bruh]

I have to admit. You frighten me a bit. I'm not sure you have a healthy respect for women, but I could be wrong.

You said it better than I could.

 

[Bruh]

Is that how you're reading that?

Yes.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying this is the only absolute time this COULD ever be considered rape??? Is if the woman cry’s out loud for help so others can hear her cry for help. But if she doesn’t cry out for help it is in fact not rape?????

 

[Ekklesian]

Yes.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying this is the only absolute time this COULD ever be considered rape??? Is if the woman cry’s out loud for help so others can hear her cry for help. But if she doesn’t cry out for help it is in fact not rape?????

Try applying them to the situations I linked to, but if you're not going to think any more deeply about the passage than you've done so far, then you're just not being serious about the subject. You're just trying to look good for the chicks.

 

[Ekklesian]

And who pray tell decides if they were a willing participant?

Reasonable men applying judgement and justice.

 

[aleshanee]

Try applying them to the situations I linked to, but if you're not going to think any more deeply about the passage than you've done so far, then you're just not being serious about the subject. You're just trying to look good for the chicks.

if you talking about the section of scripture in deuteronomy 22...... let me remind you on what Jesus told his disciples when they tried to justify divorce by bringing up deuteronomy 24..... ...Jesus told them that God had allowed moses to put that clause into the law due the hardness of mens hearts..... but that "... from the beginning it was not so..." ...

is it wrong to look at other seemingly heartless sections of deuteronomy with that in mind?......

 

[Ekklesian]

 

[aleshanee]

Reasonable men applying judgement and justice.

wrong...... ..according to the law it is supposed to be reasonable women applying justice and judgement who evaluate whether another woman was a willing participant ........

having other men attempt to judge whether a woman willingly took part in an activity where she has the most to risk and the most to lose... is like having a jury of cats decide whether a mouse willingly offered itself to one of their fellow cats for dinner.....

 

[Ekklesian]

if you talking about the section of scripture in deuteronomy 22...... let me remind you on what Jesus told his disciples when they tried to justify divorce by bringing up deuteronomy 24..... ...Jesus told them that God had allowed moses to put that clause into the law due the hardness of mens hearts..... but that "... from the beginning it was not so..." ...

is it wrong to look at other seemingly heartless sections of deuteronomy with that in mind?......

The writing of divorcement was allowed as a protection for women (and men) against the hardness of hearts of husbands AND wives. The law was not made for the righteous but for sinners. If the only relief from a contentious union were the death of the other party, don't think that hard hearts would not find that relief one way or another.

No one was fulfilling justice or righteousness with a writing of divorce. It wasn't needed in the cases of adultery under the theocracy of Israel. The remedy there was stoning. Divorce was a relief from other miseries. Christ was saying that divorce was never a good thing. And was never part of the law. It is always a reproach.

And, no, we cannot take the concession for divorce to other parts of the law.

But in Deut. 22, the woman is presumed to have cried out if the act took place in the country. But crying out, whatever form that takes, whether it is actually screaming during the act, or a call to the police shortly thereafter is not an unreasonable or heartless prerequisite.

But even if we could mitigate the force of the law in every place, it couldn't be taken to the extreme that it is in the cases to which I've linked. The woman is as guilty as Hunt in the one, and the teenager as guilty as Schaap in the other. What? They'd never read thou shalt not commit adultery?

And the sooner they both come to grips with the reality of that fact and confess their sins the better off mentally they both will be.

 

[sword]

"Women should not be given a free pass when it's clear that they were willing participants." - Average Joe

And who pray tell decides if they were a willing participant?

As a juror if the alleged victim came to someones hotel room late at night, stayed the night with him and the next day claimed he forced her to do something she did not want I would have a difficult time convicting if she was at least 18. If she was beat up or the evidence showed she struggle then that would be very different. Also if she did not come forward for years I might believe her, but without additional evidence there would be a reasonable doubt.

 

[sword]

wrong...... ..according to the law it is supposed to be reasonable women applying justice and judgement who evaluate whether another woman was a willing participant ........

having other men attempt to judge whether a woman willingly took part in an activity where she has the most to risk and the most to lose... is like having a jury of cats decide whether a mouse willingly offered itself to one of their fellow cats for dinner.....

Without additional evidence how could there every not be some reasonable doubt. In our system of justice it's beyond a reasonable doubt. that is why it's best to avoid situations where there might be doubt. never put yourself in those situtions.

I also think the sentences for those who based on evidence or witnesses are charged with auuult and rape should face much harsher sentences. When its a child and we know its almost impossible to cure why do we even risk letting them out? The law says juty or our peers, don't think it ever call out gender.

 

[sword]

according to the laws and standards currently in place - the validity of complaints and reports of sexual abuse - sexual harassment and rape are to be evaluated by reasonable people or good character who are also of the same gender as the victim.... .... (just like the accusations against the accused are to be judged by a jury of his peers)....

but how often does that happen where a group of women make the judgement about whether another women claiming she was raped should be believed?...... ... .....if you look at some of the posts on the forum so far ... (then add that to things said about me and a couple of others here in the past)..... and you can see what happens when women not only come down on the side of other women in a case like this but simply give them the benefit of the doubt....

Can you cite the law in any state where a female jurour is required. I have read a number of articles that talk about the lack of female jurors on some cases.

 

[aleshanee]

Can you cite the law in any state where a female jurour is required. I have read a number of articles that talk about the lack of female jurors on some cases.

it;s right there in the very word you used yourself.... "peers".... not that it has ever been observed or followed by modern day courts.....but then there is the way things ought to be and the way they really are..... and as christians should we not strive to act in the way things should be and make things right that are being done wrong?....... ....

and seriously.... can a man and woman be considered "peers"?...... and should they be in a case involving accusatons of sexual abuse?............ if you were accused of something like that would you like to be judged by a jury consisting entirely of women?.... and women who might have been abused themselves?...... that;s what i was talking when i said putting the mouse in front of the cats..... ...

i don;t know of a legal statute....and i;m not going to get into the "can you site this or that" game...... but i do know that the concept of being judged and evaluated by peers is the reason the standard of reasonable 3rd person in a similar situation was established when abuse cases are considered for referral to a prosecutor..... ...

 

[sword]

it;s right there in the very word you used yourself.... "peers".... not that it has ever been observed or followed by modern day courts.....but then there is the way things ought to be and the way they really are..... and as christians should we not strive to act in the way things should be and make things right that are being done wrong?....... ....

and seriously.... can a man and woman be considered "peers"?...... and should they be in a case involving accusatons of sexual abuse?............ if you were accused of something like that would you like to be judged by a jury consisting entirely of women?.... and women who might have been abused themselves?...... that;s what i was talking when i said putting the mouse in front of the cats..... ...

i don;t know of a legal statute....and i;m not going to get into the "can you site this or that" game...... but it do know that the concept of being judged and evaluated by peers is the reason the standard of reasonable 3rd person in a similar situation was established when abuse cases are considered for referral to a prosecutor..... ...

it's not a game, you are defining legal terms differently than any state in the union. just because you say it or think it does not make it the LAW anywhere.

I think a jury that did not have a balance of men and women would by default not be a fair jury. This is one case where diversity clearly has its advantage. Different age groups and people of different genders perceive things differently. In a rape case the defense would attempt to have more men. NEVER EVER IN ANY SITUATION in a rape case would the judge require all or even mostly women on the jury. This would by law be defined as unfair to the defendant and grounds for a misstrial.

 

[sword]

it's not a game, you are defining legal terms differently than any state in the union. just because you say it or think it does not make it the LAW anywhere.

I think a jury that did not have a balance of men and women would by default not be a fair jury. This is one case where diversity clearly has its advantage. Different age groups and people of different genders perceive things differently. In a rape case the defense would attempt to have more men. NEVER EVER IN ANY SITUATION in a rape case would the judge require all or even mostly women on the jury. This would by law be defined as unfair to the defendant and grounds for a misstrial.

the people who evaluate the evidence as to wheather there are grounds for an indictment is called a grand jury and they are never all one gender or age group or race. i suspect you have never searved on a reg. jury let along a grand jury.

 

[aleshanee]

it's not a game, you are defining legal terms differently than any state in the union. just because you say it or think it does not make it the LAW anywhere.

I think a jury that did not have a balance of men and women would by default not be a fair jury. This is one case where diversity clearly has its advantage. Different age groups and people of different genders perceive things differently. In a rape case the defense would attempt to have more men. NEVER EVER IN ANY SITUATION in a rape case would the judge require all or even mostly women on the jury. This would by law be defined as unfair to the defendant and grounds for a misstrial.er

it;s definitely a game - and it gets the whole conversation lost in the weeds every time its played... .. furthermore....i don;t believe it;s ever serious when it pulled on people here either....... it;s intended to bog down the person making a claim and get them to either give up or walk away........ ...i have been here a long time an seen this done before........ a few times i even complied and cited statutes and also reprinted posts other people made here - at their insistence....(subllibrm was the most recent).. .... and guess what happened.... ... nothing.... it was all ignored........ the people i answered went silent for a while then came back with their same arguments and objections weeks later.......

and to be clear - before you come back and go down this jury grand jury and judge rabbut trail again... i was not talking about a jury or a court .... i was talking about the people who hear the complaints and make the initial decision if a woman is telling the truth or not before the case ever gets that far.......... sometimes complaints are disregarded by law enforcement or social services before it ever even sees a judge...... but you over reacted and ram rodded the whole conversation in the direction you wanted it to go.....

the people who evaluate the evidence as to wheather there are grounds for an indictment is called a grand jury and they are never all one gender or age group or race. i suspect you have never searved on a reg. jury let along a grand jury.

now you are just resorting to insults....... how do you know what i have or haven;t done....... for your information i sat in a court hearing when i was 9 years old as the victim in sexual assaults....... and i had to endure hearing a defense lawyer say it was all my fault because when it started i had been an "abnormally unusually promiscuous 5 year old"...... and then attempt to explain how i had only gotten worse over time..... .... what the judge told him to do ..and threatened him with if he didn;t ..is not in any law or legal statute either.....

since then i have testified in hearings and in court a few times on the behalf of others who were abused.... but only as a witness...... and fyi - i can;t serve on a jury or grand jury either... .for the same reason i can;t own a firearm.. . also can;t hold a drivers license while we are at it......... is there anything else done - allowed or taken for granted by people who are not diagnosed as mentally ill that you want to ask me about or claim i should move away from where i live because of?........

but like i said.... i wasn;t talking about court.... i was talking about investigative work and procedures done before it ever gets that far......... but go on and jump to whatever conclusion makes you happy...... again

 

[aleshanee]

As a juror if the alleged victim came to someones hotel room late at night, stayed the night with him and the next day claimed he forced her to do something she did not want I would have a difficult time convicting if she was at least 18. If she was beat up or the evidence showed she struggle then that would be very different. Also if she did not come forward for years I might believe her, but without additional evidence there would be a reasonable doubt.

so..... according to you... a woman has to either be beaten up or risk being killed by a man before she can be believed?......... again..... i say... neither you or any other man saying these kinds of things read what i wrote asking them to imagine being robbed by someone twice their size... 3 times their muscle mass... and being told to keep quiet about it...... ... and no... .don;t tell me you could macho man your way through a situation like that or pull out a gun and get away with it.... ... the man i was describing would be well armed himself and also protected by a corrupt organization which included the police.. .. so you would be at his mercy no matter how you looked at it .............. ..

but the problem is men won;t look at it.... they can;t imagine it because as a man they claim they never feel at the mercy of anyone.... . (or else they simply refuse to admit it..)...... but women are at the mercy of men everywhere they go ... and often whether they know it or not.... ....... .sure we can arm ourselves and take self defense classes but wouldn;t it be better if men with a predadtory nature are held accountable for what they do?.. thus making hotel room shootouts and sidewalk knife fights unnecessary?............

 

[aleshanee]

here are 3 different publications which discuss how the u.s. legal system judges sex assault cases and establishes whether initial contact between the 2 was consensual or not. and whether any advance after that was consensual or not... .. .the first is the federal governments policy taught to federal employees.... the next on is as state of hawaii statue and the 3rd is from a law journal...

all 3 discuss or refer to the issue through cited cases of reasonable 3rd person and also the differences in a reasonable man vrs reasonable woman and when the observations and input of each should be used.. and when and how gender should be considered in determining the judgement of that 3rd person.. . the laws can be different in different states and not all of them mirror what the federal government recommends or demands....but in all cases i ever saw or knew of whether a woman was truly a victim and had legitimate complaint was evaluated through the eyes of a 3rd reasonable woman.... in other words.... how would a reasonable woman react to what a man presented her with..... not how a man thinks she should have reacted.....

you would have to sort through each case cited in each article to figure all of it out.. .. but having been there more than once i can tell you that what is done in court is not always in the letter of the law either......

Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment

This document was superseded on April 29, 2024 by the new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

www.eeoc.gov

2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes :: Title 33. Evidence :: 626. Hawaii Rules of Evidence :: 412 Sexual offense and sexual harassment cases; relevance of victim's past behavior.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

2023 ammendments to 2021 law.

2023 Hawaii Revised Statutes :: Title 33. Evidence :: 626. Hawaii Rules of Evidence :: 412 Sexual offense and sexual harassment cases; relevance of victim's past behavior.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0964663920947813

 

[Bruh]

EKK, must not be married or get out much or maybe he’s in his 20 something’s.

What world do you live in?

 

[Ekklesian]

EKK, must not be married or get out much or maybe he’s in his 20 something’s.

What word do you live in?

LOL. I know what God says, and that's enough. Now you do too, but don't let that interfere with your virtue signaling.