Greatest. Godwin. Ever. »« Fischer Admits Regressive Agenda

Judge Lets Cop Off, Lectures Woman

Here’s a troubling story. A police officer uses his badge to get in to a bar free, then gropes a woman, putting his hand up her skirt and grabbing her genitals. Bouncers threw him out, a jury convicted him of sexual assault and the police department, in a very rare move, actually fired him after an internal investigation supported the criminal conviction. So the judge, naturally, tells the woman she should never have put herself in that position by going to a bar.

Bad things can happen in bars, Hatch told the victim, adding that other people might be more intoxicated than she was.

“If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,” Hatch said.

Hatch told the victim and the defendant that no one would be happy with the sentence she gave, but that finding an appropriate sentence was her duty.

“I hope you look at what you’ve been through and try to take something positive out of it,” Hatch said to the victim in court. “You learned a lesson about friendship and you learned a lesson about vulnerability.”

Hatch said that the victim was not to blame in the case, but that all women must be vigilant against becoming victims.

“When you blame others, you give up your power to change,” Hatch said that her mother used to say.

No, no, a thousand times no. I can’t imagine I should even have to spell out the reason why. And the cop? He got probation instead of jail time.

Comments

  1. Francisco Bacopa says

    Well, at least the cop lost his job. That’s an unusual and positive outcome.

    But that judge. Hasn’t anything bad ever happened to her? Hasn’t anyone ever willfully harmed her? Hasn’t she ever suffered due to another’s negligence? I am almost certain she has. Yet it is also true that in every one of these instances it’s the case that if the judge had done something differently, none of these things would have ever happened. But surely the judge does not believe that no one has ever been responsible for harming her.

    How does one go about removing a judge from office in Arizona?

  2. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    That’s what you call a sister punisher, that judge. Yep. Hold on to your image of yourself as she to whom nothing bad will ever happen, only to whores that go to bars.

  3. imrryr says

    By the way, the judge later “apologized”. And by that I mean she said she was sorry if her words upset anyone.

    @nigelTheBold – I can only hope that Hatch is forced to step down and has to eat her mother’s words.

  4. subbie says

    The judge has apologized, an apology which the victim has accepted. The judge also says she’s learned an important lesson she will apply to other cases.

    Unfortunately, she also said her comments in court were “poorly communicated,” raising in my mind the possibility that the lesson she learned was not to express some thoughts out loud.

    Also, apparently a petition calling for the judge’s resignation had passed 10,000 signatures on Friday.

    http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-hatch-apologizes-to-victim/article_7e48fb9a-f934-11e1-b15a-0019bb2963f4.html

  5. anubisprime says

    That is not a judgment that is a disgusting parody of justice.
    A shocking and disgraceful performance, that ignorance has no business on a court roster!
    Blaming the victim in such pompous language sends a very wrong message.
    One wonders what this judges attitude would be if a female relation…a daughter for example…had suffered in the same way.
    Would another judge pontificate in the same way?
    Methinks the blame game switch would be disabled in that case because of course what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily gravy for the gander!

    What is it with dumb cretins that think they are qualified for positions so obviously above their competency?

  6. yoav says

    This kind of “logic” can be applied in other cases as well.
    1. If you took an alternate route that morning you wouldn’t have been hit by a drunk driver running a red light.
    2. If you went to the movies like you planed you wouldn’t have been home when the burglars came in and wouldn’t have got beaten up.
    3. If you lived somewhere else your house wouldn’t have bean damaged by that hurricane.
    and so on and so on..

  7. says

    Vulnerability is a part of living. If the onus was on the victim to minimize vulnerability at all times, we’d all be stuck hiding under our beds instead of accomplishing anything or enjoying life. It takes more than vulnerability for a crime to happen, it takes a perpetrator. We put the onus of guilt on the perpetrator to restrain himself because we want to live in a relatively safe, open society, not waste away our lives inside a box.

    From what I see, the victim is essentially being chastised for wanting something out of life other than being encased in Dr. Andonut’s Absolutely Safe Capsule. The judge also apparently wants bars to remain dangerous places where sexual crime is de facto legal because the perpetrators won’t be brought to justice. If you deter women from going to bars because of rapists and harassers, those perpetrators will expand their territory to formerly safe places because nothing is stopping them, and because the women are at those “safe” places. You’re ceding control of the region to the criminal element.

    If he wanted safer bars, he’d make an example of the perpetrator to deter others from performing similar crimes and show them that the law extends everywhere. I’ve never taken a criminal justice course, but this strikes me as remedial 101 crap. Instead, he’s effectively telling us that bars are inherently lawless regions.

  8. says

    nigelTheBold

    Really? “If you wouldn’t’ve been in a bar, you would get groped?” That seems pretty clear to me — “It’s your fault for being in a bar.”

    Of course she communicated poorly. You have to infer what she meant. She should have just communicated properly: “sluts be sluttin’”.

  9. Subtract Hominem says

    “If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,” Hatch said.

    “And if you went out but the offender hadn’t been there that night,none of this would have happened either,” Hatch didn’t even consider mentioning.

  10. kerrietiedemann says

    Just heard something on the radio the other day about a judge in baltimore who verbally attacked a woman trying to get a restraining order from her abusive husband, asking things like “where is he supposed to go?”. They played a clip on the radio and it was infuriating. Really makes you question judges that sit on local courts across the country. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/judge-bruce-lamdin-interrogates-woman-seeking-restraining-order/2012/09/09/614fd664-faae-11e1-875c-4c21cd68f653_video.html

  11. vardaman says

    The perpetrator’s former partner is a jackass, and surprisingly forthcoming: “I hope you’ll be lenient on him. To me, this is one way we can give a little back to those in law enforcement who give so much to us everyday.”

    I’ve rarely heard that point of view stated so blatantly.

  12. says

    Or at the very least she should have been wearing heavy, floor-length skirts and two petticoats. And probably a chastity belt, for added safety.

    What century did the judge’s mother raise her in?

  13. Abby Normal says

    My father used to say things like that. “If you’re walking do the street and a piano falls on you’re at least partially responsible because you chose to be walking there,” he’d say. He seemed to think it was empowering, like we’re in control of our lives. It never made much sense to me. I understand the importance of regaining one’s sense of power, especially after being victimized. Getting trapped in one’s victim story is a danger. But there’s a big difference between that psychological journey and any legal discussion of culpability.

  14. kosk11348 says

    The victim had the perfect response. To paraphrase, she said, if I wasn’t in the bar that night I wouldn’t be the victim, but some other woman would.

  15. says

    I’m pretty sure that the judge wouldn’t mind if I just happened to elbow her in the face. It’d be her own damn fault for having her face where my elbow is, right?

  16. anubisprime says

    Funny how they all claim that they misspoke or were quoted wrongly, or communicated badly…it is all everyones else’s fault except the utterer’s, it is after all not their fault that folks take exception to bigoted, misogynistic, woefully patronizing balderdash. the point being if no one payed attention no one would have been insulted…
    (except the victim, but according to this judge she was just a silly reckless female behaving like an irresponsible Jezebel)

    That judge is a disgrace…the fact that she is also apparently a female is staggering in the total and complete lack of empathy for women…for society…and for this victim in particular.

    The judge should be so ashamed of herself, a real disgrace to her so-called profession, she has no business on that bench, none whatsoever, shame on her and shame on the legal system that dumbly sits with hand on eyes ears and mouth like the three wise monkeys…this is really unacceptable.

  17. says

    Advising a woman that she needs to be extra-vigilant when she ventures into a higher-risk situation = victim blaming.

    Hoping that the victim could learn a lesson about vulnerability in order to prevent being victimized in the future = victim blaming.

    Got it.

    Walking in a feminist wonderland.

  18. Lithified Detritus says

    The judge says that women shouldn’t go into bars, but apparently she didn’t pass the bar.

    Thanks, I’m here all week…

  19. says

    kacyray “Advising a woman that she needs to be extra-vigilant when she ventures into a higher-risk situation = victim blaming.”
    Exactly. If someone gropes you in a bar, you are the one who should’ve been more vigilant, especially if that someone was a moral deviant like a felon or, um, police officer.

    Michael Heath “Stop it Modus, you’re killing me.”
    I find the classics work best.

  20. Pierce R. Butler says

    “When you blame others, you give up your power to change,” Hatch said …

    Maybe there should be some rules about [against] judges attending Newage cliché-fests.

  21. says

    Exactly. If someone gropes you in a bar, you are the one who should’ve been more vigilant, especially if that someone was a moral deviant like a felon or, um, police officer.

    So an unwarranted “you gotta be careful!” = victim blaming
    So the judge wanting the victim to learn from this experience that even a drunk cop can be just as dangerous as a barfly = victim blaming

    Got it.

    I find the classics work best.

    As a substitute for an actual argument? Only when amongst your own tribesmen. It would sound pretty silly anywhere else. I’d recommend you limit your seemingly endless wit to those safe zones in which you seem to thrive so well.

  22. Taz says

    kacyray -

    Hoping that the victim could learn a lesson about vulnerability in order to prevent being victimized in the future = victim blaming.

    If the judge was so sure she was victimized, why did she give the guy probation?

    Giving the perp a slap on the wrist while lecturing the victim? Yeah, that’s victim blaming – without a doubt.

  23. Chris from Europe says

    Don’t waste time with him, Taz. Just look at his last appearances here. He’s a hopeless misogynist who has to show everyone how superior he is.

  24. says

    “Don’t waste time with him, Taz. Just look at his last appearances here. He’s a hopeless misogynist who has to show everyone how superior he is.”

    Everytime KKKrazzeeKacy opens his fucking piehole it’s to release an avalanche of teh burnin’ stoopit. Would it be victim blaming to tell people that they should have just laughed at him?

  25. captainahags says

    Please, kacyray, explain how

    “If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,”

    is not victim blaming. She literally said the crime wouldn’t have happened if the victim wasn’t there. You are fucking obtuse.

  26. says

    Yes, society in which women aren’t blamed for being sexually assaulted would be a feminist wonderland. It’s a pity we don’t live in such a place, however, and even moreso that morons like this judge and kacyray don’t want us to.

  27. says

    Please, kacyray, explain how “If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,” is not victim blaming.

    It’s not blaming the victim for the crime.

    Here’s what feminists like yourselves are either incapable of understanding or deliberately obfuscate – blaming someone for exercising (perceived) bad judgment and blaming them for a crime are two different things.

    I’ll give you a moment for the cognitive dissonance to set in…, then I’ll tell you a personal story to illustrate my point.

    I have a younger adopted sister, whose story I will use as an example. She mentally challenged due to her crackhead biological mother. She’s an adult now and will always be on disability, but she has had phenomenally bad judgment her entire life.

    When she was 11, she kept going down the street to visit this creepy guy, though my mother strictly forbade her from doing so. Despite all my mothers efforts and adminitions, she kept going down to the guys house and (apparently) he finally had some sort of sexual relations with her.

    Needless to say, my mother was extremely upset at my sisters disobedience. She knew my sister had been victimized, but she also knew it was my sisters disobedience that enabled it. She rightfully tried to explain to my sister that if she had followed instructions, she’d have been home safe, and not in a vulnerable position.

    For years after that, my sister would tell people of how “mom blames me for getting raped”. It wasn’t until I explained to her in painstaking detail, when she was about 17, why mother NEVER blamed her for the CRIME, but for DISOBEDIENCE, that she quit going around making that accusation.

    Feminists routinely commit this same error. They draw no distinction between suggesting that perhaps a woman might have exercised better judgment and “victim blaming”. It’s the refusal to draw this distinction that makes feminists wrong on this issue.

    In the case of our hapless judge, I will capitulate that her admonitions to the woman regarding going to a bar were a bit silly. People have a right to go to a bar, and they have the right to be free from physical assault, no matter where they are.

    But whether the judge was misguided in her admonitions and advice or not, she was not blaming the woman for the CRIME, she was questioning the woman’s judgment for putting herself in an unnecessarily vulnerable position to begin with. Whether right about this or wrong – THAT is what she was doing. She was not blaming the woman for being accosted and groped.

    So now I’ve explained it. Do I expect you to accept or even understand that explanation? Of course not. I expect you to call me a sexist and a misogynist and a woman-hater and every other pejorative term in the feminist arsenal.

    Because we all know that the definition of “misogynist” is “someone feminists hate”.

  28. says

    Gretchen “Yes, society in which women aren’t blamed for being sexually assaulted would be a feminist wonderland.”
    Sure, that’s a good start, but you’re gonna need rides and a midway if you expect people to come back.

  29. captainahags says

    @kacyray

    It’s terrible what happened to your sister. And guess what? It is 100% the fault of the person who raped her. Saying ABSOLUTELY FUCKING ANYTHING to the contrary is victim blaming- because guess what? If that person hadn’t committed the crime, there would be no crime. It wouldn’t matter whether or not she had gone down to the creepy guy’s house. Her disobedience would have no consequence other than disobedience. How exactly does explaining to a victim that if they hadn’t taken this course of action, nothing would have happened, not blame the victim? It’s putting the responsibility of avoiding crime on the victim of that crime. as in victim blaming.

  30. Taz says

    kacyray -

    But whether the judge was misguided in her admonitions and advice or not, she was not blaming the woman for the CRIME

    Except that you continue to ignore the fact that the criminal got off easy, while the victim was admonished. Probably because it doesn’t fit in with your preconception that any claim of victim-blaming is feminism run amok.

    You picked a lousy example to try and explain away.

  31. Abby Normal says

    I expect you to call me a sexist and a misogynist and a woman-hater and every other pejorative term in the feminist arsenal.

    In fairness to your point, if anyone does, you were responsible for coming here.

  32. Ysanne says

    What a great line of arguments.
    If she hadn’t been in the bar, he couldn’t have groped her.
    If he’d never bought a car, it wouldn’t have been stolen.
    If there hadn’t been a bank in the city, the bank robbery couldn’t have taken place.

    How the hell can a judge fail to understand that “being aware that bad people exist and taking reasonable measures to avoid being taken advantage of” is different from “if something happens to you, it’s your own fault for not preventing it from happening”? If we went by the latter principle, we could ditch criminal law altogether!

  33. says

    @37 – As I’ve said, you’re refusing to acknowledge two separate issues being addressed. I’ve explained it – you either get it or you don’t.

    @38 – I’m not ignoring it. I’ve explained that the issues are separate. The criminal got off easy (for committing a crime), and the victim got admonished (for exercising what the judge perceived as bad judgment and lack of vigilance).

    Now, do I agree the criminal got off easy? Sure I do. Do I believe the judge was justified in her admonitions? Nah. I’ve already said that.

    But if you can’t distinguish between admonishing someone for (perceived) bad judgment and blaming them for a crime someone else committed, then you are blind. If you refuse to distinguish between the two, you are foolish.

    And if you start hurling insults at those who CAN distinguish between the two, you are probably a feminist. And probably a regular FTB commenter.

  34. laen says

    No I totally get it kacyray. It makes perfect sense. I mean in this case it isn’t the victim’s fault. In the case you brought up it wasn’t the victim’s fault. But in some case, some where, some how, it could be the victim’s fault. You just wanted to share with us the fact that somewhere somehow a victim could be responsible. Thanks for sharing.

  35. says

    “But if you can’t distinguish between admonishing someone for (perceived) bad judgment and blaming them for a crime someone else committed, then you are blind. If you refuse to distinguish between the two, you are foolish.”

    And if you can’t see that you’re a fucking moron for thinking that others don’t see through your sham logic it does not make you less of a fucking moron, you fucking moron.

  36. Timothy (TRiG) says

    Yes, women, being human, occasionally exercise bad judgment. However, had they done exactly the opposite, that would still be bad judgment. Victim-blamers can always find some way to blame the victim. Sometimes it takes a lot of imagination, but they can always find some way to do it.

    Example, merely because it’s fresh in my mind. (Read the initial post, and then search the comments for references to “Dr Glass”.)

    TRiG.

  37. Ichthyic says

    I’ve explained it

    *looks*

    nope. you seem to think what you did there was an explanation.

    it wasn’t.

    – you either get it or you don’t.

    this, is just pure bullshit. you either have a rational argument, or you don’t.

    there’s nothing complex or not understandable about what you’re saying. it’s just simplistic and wrong, that’s all.

  38. Ichthyic says

    kaykay wants us to think that leaving your car door unlocked means that the guy who stole your car should get a lesser sentence.

    it’s easy to “get”, it’s just… stupid.

  39. Ichthyic says

    oh, missed this bit:

    And if you start hurling insults at those who CAN distinguish between the two, you are probably a feminist.

    dis.

    missed.

    bloody wanker.

  40. Ichthyic says

    one thing i never want to see is someone like kaykay deciding what is and is not a “high risk situation” for anyone else other than itself.

  41. Ichthyic says

    Walking in a feminist wonderland.

    someday you’ll realize this is a good thing.

    we need MORE feminists, and less… you.

  42. Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven says

    Advising a woman that she needs to be extra-vigilant when she ventures into a higher-risk situation = victim blaming.

    Hoping that the victim could learn a lesson about vulnerability in order to prevent being victimized in the future = victim blaming.

    The only.

    Only.

    ONLY.

    Reason victimization EVER happens is because of exactly one thing:

    Not vulnerability. Not vigilance. The actions of a victimizer.

    Like you, you sack of shit.

  43. says

    People, please! Everybody knows that being vigilant means not going to bars, because everybody knows that when you go to bars, men will just reach out, and up, your skirt. That’s what they do. That’s what happens. It’s like the tides.
    Chicks go to bars, koochies get rubbed without permission, there’s no miscommunication.

  44. says

    “this, is just pure bullshit.” – Ichthyic
    “bloody wanker.” – Ichthyic
    “Like you, you sack of shit.” – Azkyroth

    And you people expect to be taken seriously…. why again?

    It’s fine though… I knew when I came in here that I’d be trying to speak truth to children.

    Next time you’re at a restaurant by yourself and you get up to go to the bathroom, see if you are self-aware enough to observe that you will likely take your wallet with you when you go. Ever wonder why you do that? Could it be because deep down you realize that, although YOU would not be guilty of theft were someone to take it off the table while you were gone, you *would* be guilty of being an idiot for having left it there.

    See? Two different actions. Two different verdicts. One is a criminal. One is a fool.

    If you are wise enough to take your wallet with you, then deep down, you know I’m right.

  45. plutosdad says

    41 kacyray

    But if you can’t distinguish between admonishing someone for (perceived) bad judgment and blaming them

    Please tell us what was her “bad judgement”, going to a bar? going out of her house? There is no evidence she was stumbling drunk, so what is it that you and the judge think was such bad judgement?

  46. punchdrunk says

    Well, she forgot to put her vagina someplace safe while she was at the bar.
    Hopefully she’ll have the foresight to leave it at home or in the glove box next time.

  47. Chiroptera says

    kacyray, #54: If you are wise enough to take your wallet with you, then deep down, you know I’m right.

    Actually, this confuses us even more. I mean, seriously? Physically groping someone is like someone take a wallet off of a table when you are not present? Even your analogy doesn’t make sense.

    As others are already asking, what is it you think that this woman should have done?

  48. says

    “Feminists routinely commit this same error. They draw no distinction between suggesting that perhaps a woman might have exercised better judgment and “victim blaming”. It’s the refusal to draw this distinction that makes feminists wrong on this issue.”

    I will say this for KacyRape’snotokayunlessyou’reastupidwomanwholeavesherhouse; he is nothing if not thorough. He doesn’t just shit in the punchbowl, he makes turdsoup.

  49. Didaktylos says

    Kacyray – don’t dispute bridge crossing rights with billy-goats: the form book is against your kind.

  50. brizian says

    Next time you’re at a restaurant by yourself and you get up to go to the bathroom, see if you are self-aware enough to observe that you will likely take your wallet with you when you go. Ever wonder why you do that? Could it be because deep down you realize that, although YOU would not be guilty of theft were someone to take it off the table while you were gone, you *would* be guilty of being an idiot for having left it there.

    I think I get it now. See, a smarter criminal knows that people take their wallets with them to the bathroom, so they’d just wait in a stall until you came in, beat you up, and steal your wallet. Then it’s your own fault you got mugged because everyone knows that criminals do that, right?

  51. says

    Ah, yes…. I appreciate all of your consistent affirmation that I made the right decision when deliberating my position on feminism and feminists.

    You may be misguided, but at least you aren’t very bright either.

  52. d cwilson says

    I knew when I came in here that I’d be trying to speak truth to children.

    See, guys, this is why you can’t understand what Kacyray’s point is. You’re just children struggling to understand his special insight. You’re supposed to just accept his natural superiority without question.
    [/sarcasm]

  53. dingojack says

    kacyray – OK then since you’re such a bright guy* explain it to me.
    + What specifically did the woman do that was irresponsible?
    + Was her behaviour any different from any of the other patrons in the bar?
    + Exactly how many other bar patrons were sexually assaulted by this off duty cop?
    + When you go to a bar do you have an expectation of safety? Do workers within the bar have a legal right to a safe workplace?
    Dingo
    —–
    * at least in your own mind

  54. morgandourif says

    Dear lord, Kacyray, you sound more condescending (and slightly deranged) with each new post. Yes, we were all clearly wrong to question your superior intellect. How noble it was for you to come in here when you knew that the gift of your knowledge would most likely go unappreciated.

  55. says

    dingojack:

    I believe that Mr. KKKrazee is busy preening–I think that’s what he calls it–so let me see if I can handle those queries.

    “+ What specifically did the woman do that was irresponsible?”

    Hello, she went out, at night, to a bar–WITHOUT A VEIL OR A MALE RELATIVE!!

    “+ Was her behaviour any different from any of the other patrons in the bar?”

    There is no information available as to whether she was the only vagina bearing individual (without a MALE RELATIVE) in the bar.

    “+ Exactly how many other bar patrons were sexually assaulted by this off duty cop?”

    Look, he’s only ONE man, he can only grope ONE woman at a time (I think it’s in The Book of TootyourRomney)

    “+ When you go to a bar do you have an expectation of safety? Do workers within the bar have a legal right to a safe workplace?”

    You have not watched a lot of John Wayne movies I take it.

    “Ah, yes…. I appreciate all of your consistent affirmation that I made the right decision when deliberating my position on feminism and feminists.

    You may be misguided, but at least you aren’t very bright either.”

    Kacy, honey:

    Your trolling for verbal abuse here demeans both you and the other commentors who, all unwittingly, feed your depravity.
    there are thousands of women out there who make a good living abusing people like you who can’t reach orgasm unless they have that sort of stimulation. Otoh, I suppose it is much more comfortable doing it online and not having to wear the gimp suit.

  56. Chiroptera says

    Oh, and by the way:

    If I had left my wallet on a restaurant table while I went to the rest room and someone took it and that person was caught…

    …everyone realizes that the judge at the trial would not have admonished me to be more careful, right? In fact, based on an actual experience I had with a theft, I imagine that if I had said, “I guess I should have been more careful,” the judge would have responded, “Why? It was your wallet that you left on the table you were using.”

  57. morgandourif says

    Don’t even bother to ask questions and challenge Kacyray on any of his specific points, people. We were all meant to understand the first time, and we were clearly all meant to agree without question.

  58. says

    To be fair to Kacyray, from personal experience I can see where he’s coming from. It happened when I was younger, you see, and was my own fault for putting myself in that situation.
    I punched and I kicked, giggling with desperation, but he was too swift, and nobody else even noticed anything had happened.
    One day, I’ll get it back. I will take back my nose, father!

  59. arakasi says

    Maybe Kacyray thinks that the woman should have maced the cop when he got within 5 feet of her. There is no way that course of action could have gone wrong.

  60. dingojack says

    That’s what we were evidently meant to do (well it went like that in the practice dialog he held with the mirror before he posted).
    The real world doesn’t work that way.
    So KacyBaby – five simple questions. We’re waiting.
    Dingo

  61. says

    arakasi “Maybe Kacyray thinks that the woman should have maced the cop when he got within 5 feet of her.”
    Stand Your Mound laws? That’s too far. I went too far, didn’t I? Still, if anyone’s offended, Kacyray says you exercised bad judgment coming here, to the internet.

  62. yoav says

    Kacyray, I know I probably wasting my time but I’ll try yo get through that tick head of yours. What you do is victim blaming because you place the burden of preventing the crime completely on the victim, you also demand that we just accept that for a woman sitting in a public place should be considered entering a high risk environment where extra vigilance is required. Is there any environment short of a locked bunker buried 3 miles under the north pole and guarded by dragons, in which you will consider a woman should have a reasonable expectations of not being groped by strangers?
    And let me add that your mother telling your step sister, who was 11 fu*king years old and suffer from mental development problem, that if she didn’t go to the neighbor’s house she wouldn’t have been raped is blaming her for getting raped, at least now we know that being an asshole is something that run in your family.

  63. says

    Dingo/Chip,

    Reference my comment@41 for the answers to your questions. I’ve already stated that the judges admonitions were unjustifiably. And I’ve already agreed that the cop got off too easy. But please, don’t let my actual words deter you from attacking that ugly straw man.

    in fact, I’ve been very deliberate about qualifying the word “irresponsibility” each time I’ve used it. I have consistently said PERCEIVED irresponsibility. As in – that’s how the JUDGE (not me) perceived her. So the fact that you and tribe are still asking me to justify someone else’s perception demonstrates that either you’re not listening to or not capable of understanding what I’m saying.

    What you haven’t done, what you cannot do, and what you won’t even try to do, is justify your equivocation of blaming someone for their (perceived) irresponsibility and blaming them for a crime. You can howl until you’re blue in the face that they are the same thing, but they aren’t. They aren’t the same, they can’t be the same, and they will never be the same, no matter how many of you keep bleating it.

  64. dingojack says

    Yes – but you are SUPPORTING the Judge’s admonishion. So you’re either think she’s right, or you’re arguing a position you don’t even believe in, which?
    Dingo

  65. kermit. says

    kacy, sweetie, I am a bear of very little brain, and deep thoughts bother me.

    Could you please explain in a little more depth how a woman going to a bar is like a brain-damaged child disobeying her mother?

    Also, how was that woman less vigilant than the other patrons of that bar?

    Thanks in advance.

  66. Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven says

    Actually, this confuses us even more. I mean, seriously? Physically groping someone is like someone take a wallet off of a table when you are not present? Even your analogy doesn’t make sense.

    It makes perfect sense.

    Wallets are things.

    Women are things.

    You see?

    *vomits*

  67. crowepps says

    A person adopts a mentally challenged girl, is aware that because of her disability she has phenomenally bad judgment, is further aware that at the age of 11 the child is being ‘groomed’ by a creepy neighbor and still allows the child out of the house unsupervised? It sounds to me like the person at fault in that scenario is the mother who didn’t properly protect the child and instead allowed her to be raped in order to teach her a lesson about disobedience. The only thing that could have made the situation worse was having a brother who thinks it served her right.

  68. says

    @75 dingo – I have very clearly stated that I disagree with the judge’s assessment. I realize that my repudiation of her assessment doesn’t fit nicely with the caricature you have of me in your mind, so it might be tough for you to come to grips with it. But the reality is, I don’t agree with the judge’s admonishment.

    But my disagreement with that admonishment doesn’t magically convert the admonishment for (perceived) bad judgment into a placement of blame for the crime. (Not unless you happen to be part of of the FeministTribe Blogs community.)

    That is my point, and I can’t make it any more clear than I already have. Whether or not you agree with the judge’s admonishment is NOT GERMANE to the issue – the fact is that the judge admonished the woman for (perceived) bad judgment, and she very clearly stated was not blaming the woman for the crime committed against her.

    Once again – you can either distinguish between the two, or you can’t.

    @76

    kacy, sweetie, I am a bear of very little brain, and deep thoughts bother me.

    kacy, sweetie, I am a bear of very little brain, and deep thoughts bother me. Could you please explain in a little more depth how a woman going to a bar is like a brain-damaged child disobeying her mother?.

    I think I can help you. The problem is not that you have trouble with the comparison, the problem is that you are having trouble identifying *which entities* I am comparing.

    I was comparing my mothers admonishment to my sister for exercising bad judgment to the judges admonishment to the victim for (perceived) bad judgment. I was also secondarily comparing my sisters rapist (who was at fault for the crime) to the cop (who was at fault for the crime).

    So you see, when you understand with clarity the two entities I was *actually* comparing to each other (my mother and the judge), you will probably have a much easier time comparing the two.

    My mother and the judge both made an admonishment for bad judgement (again, whether the admonishment was justified is not germane to this discussion).

    My sister and the woman were both victims.

    The rapist and the cop were both criminals, and both 100% responsible for their crimes.

    See now, isn’t that better?

    @ crowepps #79

    A person adopts a mentally challenged girl, is aware that because of her disability she has phenomenally bad judgment, is further aware that at the age of 11 the child is being ‘groomed’ by a creepy neighbor and still allows the child out of the house unsupervised? It sounds to me like the person at fault in that scenario is the mother who didn’t properly protect the child and instead allowed her to be raped in order to teach her a lesson about disobedience. The only thing that could have made the situation worse was having a brother who thinks it served her right.

    My mother was volunteering at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, FL about 25 years ago when she found herself taking care of a baby born 2 1/2 months premature to a drug-addled mother. She fell in love with the child and brought her home as a foster parent.

    Then she found out the child had a 2 year old brother who was in a very abusive situation. She brought him home too. Then the woman had another kid about a year later. She brought her home too. Then did so one more time, until the crackhead mother finally died.

    Eventually my parents adopted all 4 kids, all of whom were developmentally challanged, all of whom needed special care. They raised those kids until they were all out of the house.

    Then they retired and moved to NC. About a year and a half into their retirement, they were both killed in a car wreck while driving through Tennessee. They were good people who left this world better than they found it, so I’d like to personally say FUCK YOU on behalf of both of them (particularly my mother, who was heartbroken when my sister was raped), and inform you that you have just joined douchebagcommie as a commenter I will ignore from this point forward. Keep it in mind if you ever type anything to me again. I won’t read it. Fuck you very much.

  69. fastlane says

    Awww, it sounds like poow widdle kazyway’s feefees were hurt by the big mean comments.

    Poor widdle cupcake, have a baba.

    Now shut the fuck up and go play in traffic.

  70. plutosdad says

    so what the hell are you arguing for?

    You are saying “yeah but there is some hypothetical other case where it could be ok to point out what they should not have done”

    You didn’t say that in the beginning. And this case has nothing to do with it. Instead you just came in blasting everyone for criticizing the judge. “perceived” doesn’t mean squat, it doesn’t make it ok, and if you claim you disagree with the judge, then why do you care that we do too?

    Telling your kids beforehand “don’t get so drunk you can’t stand up straight, then go walking home alone down dark alleys and sidestreets” is one thing (for both sexes), but when someone’s been victimized, they are ALREADY blaming themselves and saying they shouldn’t have done x or y.

    If you read the Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker, you’ll see women beat themselves up after getting raped, often blaming themselves more than they blame the rapist. there is no need for you or anyone to start “helping” them by pointing out what they did wrong. You’ll also see plenty of rapes happen in elevators, which is why the whole thing came up.

  71. says

    I’m beginning to think that KKKrazzeeK is either a 12 yo with some sort of fantasy life or our old friend, Isabelladingdong.

    I mean, fuck, it seems like he’s got a family member for ever possible scenario. I’ve got 10 brothers and sisters (most of them pretty normal) but ol’ KKKrazzeeK’s got 4 that are all developmentally disabled but “out of the house” (and into what, one might ask). Are we to surmise that the other three children were all perfect little angels and required no “admonishing”?

    Never mind that whatever family court judge allowed a family of less than very substantial means to adopt not one child, but four children with severe health issues.

    “If you read the Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker, you’ll see women beat themselves up after getting raped, often blaming themselves more than they blame the rapist.”

    Well, at least they won’t be pregnant, it it was a legitrape, according to Mr. Akin.

  72. Chiroptera says

    democommie, #83: Well, at least they won’t be pregnant, it it was a legitrape, according to Mr. Akin.

    Maybe kacyray can explain what it was that Akin percieved to be the question to which his answer would be the apporpriate response.

  73. says

    If you read the Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker, you’ll see women beat themselves up after getting raped, often blaming themselves more than they blame the rapist.

    Blaming themselves FOR WHAT???

    Can’t you get it through your head than when you say the term (explicitly or implicitly) I blame , there is an understanding that you are blaming that person FOR SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR?

    And that’s what your junior-varsity team here can’t get through your collective grapes. The issue here is that Ed took exception to the judge’s admonitions to the victim for what she perceived as bad judgement. Ed’s position is that the judge is victim-blaming. Of course, all you-of-his-tribe swallow it whole, without question or critical assessme3nt.

    The rape victims you describe do not typically blame themselves for the RAPE, they blame themselves for whatever they did to enable it.

    Often times, they are way too harsh on themselves. Sometimes their self-judgment is warranted. The reality is that sometimes people do stupid things that put themselves in unnecessarily vulnerable, high-risk situations in which they think they’ll be able to escape, only to find out way too late that they could not.

    But what they typically DO NOT do is blame themselves for other people’s actions. They will say things like “Why did I walk home by myself rather than call a cab”. They typically don’t say things like “Why did I put that man’s penis in my vagina against my will?”

    Of course, to you those two statements are probably indistinguishable. You simply can’t tell the difference, and you won’t even admit there might be one. What’s wrong? Afraid you might incur the wrath of your tribe?

    Not one of you here has acknowledged that when you blame someone, you have to blame them for something in particular. THAT IS YOUR FALLACY – Context dropping.

    You drop context when you hear the judge’s words “Maybe there are safer places for you to be than a bar”
    You drop context when you hear the words of someone like my mother “Why didn’t you listen to me when I was trying to keep you safe?”
    You drop context when you hear a rape victim say “Why did I let that happen?”

    When you hear the words “You made yourself vulnerable”, they get processed through the femin-o-brain-processor and come out as “you deserved what you got”.

    That’s why you aren’t taken seriously, and never will be.

  74. vardaman says

    Holy shit, but Kacy is the worst kind of pedant.

    I’m generally just a lurker, but hell, this guy–I’m not going to address him directly–really can’t make a point to save his life. And much worse, he really, really believes he has something important to say.

    The rape victims you describe do not typically blame themselves for the RAPE, they blame themselves for whatever they did to enable it.

    There is no effective difference between these two. Whatever difference exists is negligible when you’re dealing with the actual psychological ramifications of the blaming that’s going on.

    If I’ve been victimized, and I’m standing in a court of law being chastised by the judge for choices I’ve made that might or might not have made the event more likely, I’m not going to be able to suss out the difference between “You caused the crime to happen” and “You made a decision that caused the crime to be more likely.” For Kacy to blather on about how important the difference is between the two shows him to be a completely pedantic twat.

  75. says

    @86 – The difference is crucially relevant, particularly when determining moral culpability.

    The fact that you can’t recognize the crucial difference between “There are ways to decrease the odds of being victimized in the future” and “You are to blame for what happened to you” says more about your ability to grasp the argument than it says about my ability to present it.

    Pedantic – isn’t that what you call someone when you can’t get your head around the idea that words really mean things?

    Either way, the fact that you lack the stones to address me directly has been duly noted.

  76. Chiroptera says

    vardaman, #86: Holy shit, but Kacy is the worst kind of pedant.

    You mean that the point kacyray is trying to make is not only trivial, but incoherent and wrong?

    Yeah, I agree.

  77. says

    Kacyray,

    1. Every time you describe a rape victim as “enabling” her rape, you blow your own stupid argument out of the water without apparently realizing it. To enable is to contribute to, to be partially responsible for. If you say a woman enabled her rape, you are fucking blaming her for it.

    2. You have described the victim in this case– the woman in the bar– as being irresponsible. I’ve seen people ask you numerous times to explain how that is. Do you have an actual answer? Or maybe I should say, do you have an answer that doesn’t amount to justifying the claim that any woman who was sexually assaulted was being irresponsible?

  78. says

    KKKacytheKKKranKKK has apparently pulled a page from Lancifurious’ book and decided to add me to his “never respond to” list. I do feel special, but selfish, I wish that he would everyone on the blog to his “never respond to” list. It would increase the level of discourse on those threads he ignores.

  79. says

    Gretchen -

    You have described the victim in this case– the woman in the bar– as being irresponsible.

    Not once have I described her as irresponsible. What I have done, repeatedly, is described the judges comments as an admonition for the woman’s perceived irresponsibility. I have even explicitly stated that I disagreed with the judge’s assessment of the woman’s degree of responsibility. I have done this repeatedly thoughout the thread. I have even clarified this point on at least two occasions (see comments #41 and #74, and try not to let your confirmation bias get in the way of all those words I typed).

    I don’t believe going to a bar is an inherently irresponsible act. The judge apparently does. GET IT?

    I’ve seen people ask you numerous times to explain how that is.

    Interesting that you were able to see all those people ask, but not once were you able to see the numerous times I answered. I guess that confirmation bias really DOES get in the way!

    Every time you describe a rape victim as “enabling” her rape, you blow your own stupid argument out of the water without apparently realizing it.

    My own stupid argument, eh? Well… can’t argue with that.

    To enable is to contribute to, to be partially responsible for. If you say a woman enabled her rape, you are fucking blaming her for it.

    Alright, you win. Now please, on your way out the door be sure to leave your wallet on the table. And then tell yourself it wasn’t at all your fault when someone eventually takes it.

  80. says

    Kacyraye said:

    Not once have I described her as irresponsible

    Bullshit:

    My mother and the judge both made an admonishment for bad judgement

    Alright, you win. Now please, on your way out the door be sure to leave your wallet on the table. And then tell yourself it wasn’t at all your fault when someone eventually takes it.

    It wouldn’t be at all my fault, you jackass, however irresponsible it would be for me to leave my wallet on the table. And yes, I acknowledge that it would be irresponsible. It would not be irresponsible for me to go to the bar in the first place, to BIADEWF (be in a drinking establishment while female). So tell me, why do you keep making this idiotic comparison in one breath while starkly denying that you agree with the judge’s admonishment of the woman’s supposed bad judgment in the next? Do you think that being female in a bar is like leaving a wallet on the table, or not?

    If so, then you think she was being irresponsible and partially at fault, and therefore agree with the judge.

    If not, then you have some concept of how things and people are not the same. Congratulations.

    But regardless, you’re an idiot for thinking either victim is “enabling” the crime that happened to them…especially so because in the woman’s case, it amounts to blaming her for being a woman in a bar.

  81. says

    This—–> “My mother and the judge both made an admonishment for bad judgement” is not an example of me describing the woman’s behavior as irresponsible. Are you having trouble with the whole “reading comprehension” thing again?

    You asserted that I’ve described the victim as irresponsible. Do you have any examples of me doing that? If not, I accept your apology.

    It wouldn’t be at all my fault, you jackass, however irresponsible it would be for me to leave my wallet on the table. And yes, I acknowledge that it would be irresponsible. It would not be irresponsible for me to go to the bar in the first place, to BIADEWF (be in a drinking establishment while female). So tell me, why do you keep making this idiotic comparison in one breath while starkly denying that you agree with the judge’s admonishment of the woman’s supposed bad judgment in the next?

    Because, you jackass, describing an action is not the same as sanctioning or agreeing with it.

    Surprise!

    Do you think that being female in a bar is like leaving a wallet on the table, or not?

    No, but apparently the judge does, which is WHAT I’VE BEEN DESCRIBING!

    Surprise!!!!

    But regardless, you’re an idiot for thinking either victim is “enabling” the crime that happened to them…especially so because in the woman’s case, it amounts to blaming her for being a woman in a bar.

    Good to see that you are able to acknowledge that a person can suffer due to their own irresponsibility. Do you know that after 91 comments over two days you are the only commenter here, other than myself, to acknowledge that reality?

    Aw, shucks Gretchen! I knew you’d come around.

  82. dingojack says

    So let’s see –
    A) leaving one’s wallet unattended in a public place = irresponsible
    B) getting felt-up in a bar = (perceived) bad judgement
    Both A) and B) are exactly equivalent, except when called on it then clearly they’re not anything alike.
    You think that’s a winning argument, do you?

    Dingo
    —–
    And since you say that rape victims don’t blame themselves for being raped (except for the “enabling” bit, which is part of the rape, thus contradicting your own argument in the same breath) you can furnish evidence for this assertion, right Sparky?
    Not tales of your imaginary relatives, but actual evidence.

  83. says

    dingo,

    First of all, the premise that an action which enables a crime is part of the crime itself is a FALSE premise that you seem to have swallowed whole, uncritically.

    Just as leaving your wallet on a table does not in any way constitute part of that wallets theft, putting yourself in a position vulnerable to rape is not in any way part of the actual rape. So your premise is flawed. Therefore your basis – and this goes for every single one of the tribe here – for criticizing the judge AND my assessment of her words – is misguided and faulty.

    And since you say that rape victims don’t blame themselves for being raped (except for the “enabling” bit, which is part of the rape, thus contradicting your own argument in the same breath) you can furnish evidence for this assertion, right Sparky?
    Not tales of your imaginary relatives, but actual evidence.

    My statement about what rape victims say and don’t say sawe a direct response to Gretchen’s contention that rape victims often blame themselves for the rape. She provided no examples, no evidence, nothing to support her contention. For the sake of time and brevity, and as a courtesy, I took her at her word without a demand for specific examples. So long as we are speaking about the same topic, I merit the same courtesy, right Sparky.

    Oh, or did you just not notice that your standards for evidence and proof didn’t exist when it came to your own tribesman, but suddenly got raised when it came to an outsider? Yeah Sparky… bet you didn’t notice that at all.

  84. says

    As Michael Heath might say, if he were less politely formal:

    “He who makes the most egregiously stupid and exceptionally illogical claim* has to furnish the evidence (admittedly difficult to find, since it does not exist) to back HIS claim before demanding evidence from those who are pointing at him and laughing*”.

    I beg Mr. Heath’s pardon for taking this liberty.

    * If this was on a wiki page it would be accompanied by a rogues gallery of photos, including the likes of mboberts, Isabel, Milesius, Lancifer and, without a doubt, Mr. KKKrazzeeKKKacy

    ** It is actually quite difficult to search for ANYTHING when one is laughing one’s ass off.

  85. dingojack says

    Nope – legally it’s called being an accessory before, during or after the fact*.
    Nope – your attempt to deflect ain’t gonna work, the evidence has been tabled, got any counter evidence to support your bald assertion that women don’t blame theselves for being raped, Sparky?
    Dingo
    —–
    * Besides we’re talking about perceived culpability not actual responsibility.
    (see how piss-poor that auguement is)

  86. says

    Sparky @98 Really? You’re asserting that there is case law where a woman has been held legally responsible for her own rape, or that someone has been held legally responsible for the theft of their own property?

    Where you getting this legal stuff from there, Sparky? Got any evidence? Got any clue?

    And once again, you don’t demand evidence or citations for Gretchen’s assertion that women DO blame themselves for being raped (cause she’s part of your tribe, right?), yet you demand evidence and citations for MY assertion that what they are actually blaming themselves for is their own irresponsibility (because I’m an outsider).

    See, your commitment isn’t to evidence or reason at all… it’s to the tribe. Well played, Sparky. I get the feeling the rest of your tribe will congratulate and reward you for your display of loyalty.

    Show me ONE example in the American justice system of where someone has been held legally or criminally responsible for their own victimization, or even being named as an accessory. Victim-blaming, my aching ass.

  87. says

    “see how piss-poor that auguement is”

    I was thinking that you, dingo jack, had made a typo there; but I realized that it’s a great neologism, combining augur and argument.

    KKKrazzeKKKacyRacist makes ridiculous assertions but knows, going in, that he will win the debate, hence “auguement”. Cool.

  88. dingojack says

    The more I think about: “the premise that an action which enables a crime is part of the crime itself is a FALSE premise…” the more I realise it is clearly wrong.

    a) being in company
    b) consorting
    c) accessory (before, during and after)
    d) failure to report
    e) aiding and abetting
    f) suborning perjury
    g) hindering a police investigation
    h) perverting the course of justice

    (just off the top of my head)

    All of the above don’t necessarily require any kind of overt criminal act, all are considered to be part of a crime as they further a criminal act.

    Dingo
    —–
    Then, of course, there’s ‘reckless endangerment’ and ‘criminal negligence’ which require a lack of action

  89. dingojack says

    Hell – you don’t even have to do a crime, planning a crime can be enough: attempted robbery, attempted murder and etc.
    Dingo

  90. says

    Dingo – all of the things you described have something in common that makes them fall under auspices of criminality – intent.

    Acting irresponsibly (such as leaving your wallet out) lacks the criminal intent that is required for an act to be considered a crime by any definition. It doesn’t even qualify as negligence because there is no legal requirement in place *not* to leave your wallet on a table, so it fails even that test.

    So you see, everything you listed (a thru h), as well as planning a crime, are ALL acts with criminal intent, which is why they are all punishable by law. Leaving your wallet on a table (or going to a bar) do not meet that criteria, which is why is has never been punished by law.

    Those acts are therefore fundamentally different. That is why rape is *legally regarded* as a crime, whereas irresponsible behavior is *not legally regarded* as a crime.

    Once again – irresponsibility is not regarded, either legally or otherwise, as part and parcel of a criminal act. This is why people are ADMONISHED and not PUNISHED for irresponsibility (whether real or perceived). GET IT?

    To equivocate actions that possess criminal intent with actions that do not is fallacious, and therefore fails to repudiated my point about the false premise.

    Got anything else? Remember… capitulation to the truth is an honorable act. Don’t be afraid. The tribe can’t really hurt you.

  91. dingojack says

    Re-read the quoted text there Sparky – intent wasn’t the issue you were talking about, but actions. Moving the goalposts won’t work here as your words can be re-read and checked.
    In fact not Sparky, one does not even have to have intent in the cases of consorting, being in company, being an accessory, aiding and abetting, criminal negligence or reckless endangerment, your actions are still considered as part of the criminal act (which is contrary to what you claimed).

    Dingo
    —–
    Got any evidence to support your theory that women don’t blame themselves for being raped yet?

  92. says

    Ah, sparky… I read the quoted text. I’ve explained the fundamental difference between actions like *consorting* or *planning* a crime, and leaving a wallet out or going to a bar.

    If that doesn’t resonate by this point, I will resign myself to the reality that it never will.

    Got any evidence to support your theory that women don’t blame themselves for being raped yet?

    When you make the same demands for evidence from your tribesmen, I’ll consider the demands you’re making of me. I believe this is the third time I’ve pointed this out, and you still won’t acknowledge your double-standard. Suffice it to say, I won’t jump through your little hoops. Be consistent with your demands, or don’t even bother making them.

  93. dingojack says

    The argument doesn’t bear the least scrutiny -
    murder can be roughly defined as: ‘Feloniously taking the life of another person with malice aforethought in the absence of mitigating circumstances’
    If no intent can be proved but all the other elements are satisfied then it’s manslaughter (that’s still a crime, Sparky). Intent isn’t the whole crime.
    Dingo

  94. dingojack says

    Already addressed the evidence plutosdad tabled, if you have reading difficulties that’s not really my issue but yours.
    As pointed out intent may or may not be an element in a crime, but you were speaking of actions not intent* (it’s a shame you even have reading difficulties with your own screeds, how sad).
    You made the extraordinary claim about women’s attitudes to rape, now you must provide your extraordinary evidence.
    Put up or shut up time.
    Dingo
    —–
    #96 “First of all, the premise that an action which enables a crime is part of the crime itself is a FALSE premise that you seem to have swallowed whole, uncritically”.

  95. says

    If no intent can be proved but all the other elements are satisfied then it’s manslaughter

    I’m not a legal expert, so I can’t confirm or deny what you’re saying here. And notably, you’ve offered no reference or citation. Are you a lawyer?

    Either way – “taking” a life is fundamentally different from “enabling” a life to be taken. The former is a positive action, and the latter is something we all do every day, to some degree. (It’s kinda unavoidable).

    Want to hear an interesting story? You know the American Marines that were killed over in Afghanistan about a month ago? One of them was my chief last year. He was a Sergeant and he was about to reach service limits. If he didn’t get promoted on the next board, he’d have been put out of the Marine Corps (because unless you get promoted to Staff Sergeant, you can only serve up to 10 years).

    I didn’t want to see him lose his career and I thought he had potential, so I wrote him a strong fitness report. He got promoted, and wound up in Afghanistan the next year. Last month, he was shot to death by an Afghan civilian wearing an ISAF uniform while he was in the gym working out.

    Now… do I feel responsible for this Marine’s death? No – I realize it was completely that civilian’s fault. Do I recognize that I took actions that indirectly put the SSgt in the position where he got killed? Sure I do.

    No one would regard my action as irresponsible – I gave the Marine an honest evaluation, so please don’t confuse this story with the story of the judge. The point of *this* story is to demonstrate that a causal relationship can exist between actions that are not criminal and actions that are criminal without lumping the two together the way you are doing.

    Leaving your wallet on a table where it gets stolen does not make the owner of the wallet responsible for the theft. It makes him an irresponsible idiot. And the same can be said for anyone who suffers a crime enabled by their own irresponsibility.

    Again, whether you or I regard the victims actions as genuinely irresponsible is not the point. the point is that the *judge* thought the woman was behaving irresponsibly, and therefore the judge was *admonishing* the woman for irresponsible behavior, not *blaming her* for being victimized.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

  96. says

    Dingo, I’d be more than happy to continue this conversation. Although you throw out the occasional snarky comment and “Sparky” jab, you have said nothing personally insulting or disrespectful, and you have argued against my position rather than merely dismissing it. You’ve been a good sport arguing an honest disagreement, and in my judgment that puts you a cut above everyone else in this sewer.

    I just feel like we’ve gone as far as we can at this point, in this forum. Here’s my position:

    - Each day we make decisions that put us as risk.
    - Those risks we face each day come from a variety of sources. Some are risks associated with nature itself (rock climbing, for example). Some risks are associated with what we know about the other creatures with whom we share the planet (venomous snakes, lions, rabid dogs, criminals, etc…).
    - It is up to each of us to decide how much risk we will accept in our lives.
    - A reasonable person will generally act to maximize their life experience while minimizing risk to their life. They strive to strike a rational balance. (An example of this would be accepting the risk of skydiving in return for the thrill associated with a free fall)
    - An irrational person will accept risk disproportionate to the amount of return the receive for the risk they took. (An example of this would be bringing a rabid dog into your home as a pet when there are plenty of non-rabid dogs that would serve just as well).

    - When one behaves irrationally and accepts unnecessary risk, they may or may not suffer consequences for it.
    - If they do, is it *perfectly appropriate* to point out to that person that they behaved irrationally be accepting unnecessary risk, and that the risk that accepted resulted in the consequences they’ve suffered. (Hey man, why didn’t you just adopt a dog that didn’t have rabies?)

    - In the case of this story, the judge seemed to believe that going to a bar at night is a riskier activity that, say, watching netflix at home. Therefore, she made her point that “Hey, bad things happen in bars”.
    - The judge was clearly admonishing the woman for what the judge perceived as *taking unnecessary risk*.
    - The judge then handed down a sentence to the cop for the crime committed by the cop.

    - Holding a person responsible for what they did is NOT THE SAME as holding them responsible for what someone else did. That’s why the woman got an admonishment (whether warranted or not), and the cop got a sentence (whether appropriate or not).

    This is my position, and I’ve laid it out with full reasoning and justification. If you are not convinced, I am happy to end it here, offer you a virtual handshake, and be on my way.

  97. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Leaving your wallet on a table where it gets stolen does not make the owner of the wallet responsible for the theft. It makes him an irresponsible idiot.

    Going out in public while female does not make the female responsbile for sexual assault. It makes her an irresponsible idiot.

    Because chicks are just like wallets. Objects that people can’t resist grabbing when they’re left unattended.

  98. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    - Holding a person responsible for what they did is NOT THE SAME as holding them responsible for what someone else did. That’s why the woman got an admonishment (whether warranted or not), and the cop got a sentence (whether appropriate or not).

    for the 73rd time:

    WHAT DID SHE DO THAT SHE NEEDS TO BE ‘RESPONSIBLE’ FOR?

  99. yoav says

    Kacyray#99

    Show me ONE example in the American justice system of where someone has been held legally or criminally responsible for their own victimization, or even being named as an accessory. Victim-blaming, my aching ass.

    The kind of things you claim to be irresponsible behaviors have been often used by people who defend rapists as mitigating circumstances claiming the victim was “asking for it” by dressing in a certain way or being in a certain place. You know, victim blaming.

  100. says

    Oh, dear, KKKrazzeeKKKatKKKacy thinks we’re confused about what he said v what the judge said. Too bad, so sad, dumbfuck; we know what BOTH of you fucking morons said.

  101. SpaceQueso says

    Alright.
    Kacy is reasonably upset.
    He may concurrently being a dick, he may be using arguments that are not really based in reality… But it’s reasonable to understand why he would be upset about this.
    We’ve all presumably read his story. It sucks. We’ve heard it. It’s reasonable to assume that he would have some cognitive dissonance. We’re gonna have to deal with that.

    Kacy, to you, I have a few things to offer. If a judge is offering admonishment for an action that was not irresponsible, wouldn’t that be assigning irresponsibility to a party who was not irresponsible? Would it logically follow, if you allow the negatives to cancel each other out, that the judge was assigning responsibility to a person who is not responsible? Would you agree that assigning partial responsibility falls into the category of “laying blame”?

    You know, even though I knew Steve Irwin was probably gonna get killed by an animal, I didn’t think his death was his fault.

    Kacy, I understand where you’re coming from. I know that victims of assault often become victimized again because the psychological damage caused to them can impair their judgment. I understand that recognizing impaired judgment is not victim blaming. I’ve seen people call it that. I’ve seen people defame professionals trying to help victims of assault or abuse. I get the difference. There is one. But it’s not just one or the other. It isn’t “Everyone is blaming the victim” or “Victim blaming doesn’t exist”. This judge wasn’t giving helpful advice. She was telling a woman that her actions were partially responsible for her assault. Perhaps her intent was to help the victim. She didn’t feel the need to help other women who may be victims of assault by sentencing a known criminal to actual jail time, thereby removing him from women who he could victimize. Since we can’t be inside her mind, we can’t determine her motives. They might presumably strike you as sympathetic if you compare them to your mother’s. I don’t think they’re comparable.

    Crime is no one’s fault but the criminal. And until we live in a world that teaches people how not to be criminals, and punishes them for criminal behavior, victim blaming will be a reality.

    I’ll leave you with this quote, since you mentioned not being a lawyer… I pretty much thought this was common knowledge, but oh well, Wikipedia is almost the same thing XD
    (emphasis mine)
    “In criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) element required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is defined as an act that is: careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant.

    Feel free to call me a feminist. I am :) I won’t call you a misogynist. I’ll give you a break and call you a momentarily bad skeptic. You have the choice of whether or not you wanna make that one stick.

  102. says

    Space Queso:

    “He may concurrently being a dick, he may be using arguments that are not really based in reality… But it’s reasonable to understand why he would be upset about this.”

    He is always a dick. He insists on spewing the same bullshit (or a variant of it) every fucking time he comments on a thread. His schtick is old and unpersauasive. He’s got a sad story? so fucking what?

    He substitutes anecdotes for evidence and can be relied on to pull a story about his own experience in life to buttress his assertions. If he wants people to believe him he needs to furnish evidence to back his assertions–it’s just that simple. He doesn’t want to do that, fuck him.

  103. Ichthyic says

    It’s reasonable to assume that he would have some cognitive dissonance. We’re gonna have to deal with that.

    why?

    it’s kaykay’s job to deal with his borked thought processes.

    not ours.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply