There's so many...
There's so many...
Comments
142-
-
You can believe women and tend to their psychological trauma while also waiting to condemn the accused until they are convicted in court.
Now, the Epstein stuff is very different, there's overwhelming evidence and it's very obvious. But as a general rule otherwise, just ruining a life based on someone's claim shouldn't be okay.
-
We do, until the legal system gets involved z and the entire point of that legal system is that it can't care if you're male, female, trans, or not.
If someone accuses you of rape, they have to be able to prove it. I known this sucks. I also know that this is a situation that many times is a "he said she said" situation that cannot be proven, so yes, I also know that there are many rapists out there, walking amongst us, possibly waiting to strike again
I also know that that is the price that we (most western European democracies, the US is already on the rdge) pay for a system of law that does not primarily focuses on jailing the guilty, it primarily focuses on keeping the innocent out of jail.
And yes, that is a system that you want. The second that we'd have a system where we would always automatically believe the word of any random person, just and only because she is a woman, you'd better be careful with who you decide will be your girlfriend. Same goes in reverse.
-
I wish that's how the legal system works but it does not. The way the legal system works is the wealthier you are the more innocent you are. The wealthier you are the more advantages you have. The wealthier you are the easier it is to crush anyone trying to get Justice from you. That's the way our Justice system works. That's the way it's designed to work.
-
While yes, that still doesn't mean we just believe every accusation. It just means we fix the justice system first and then do it properly. All that really needs to happen is that tax money pays for lawyers, and the rich party could pay for extra legal help, but it will go equally to both sides.
-
Innocent till proven broke.
-
-
-
i don't think having evidence will change anything. there's a lot of stuff with concrete proof that he got away with...
he has repeatedly violated the hatch act, commited multiple felonies, illegally fired several federal employees, bungled diplomatic relations publicly, funnelled billions of dollars to his family and friends etc .
he got away with it all 🙄
-
And he will probably die without receiving punishment for his crimes, and I think that pisses me off the most.
-
Me too, but at least he will die
-
Makes me wish hell was real
-
-
-
-
For all the rapist defense rhetoric fucks out there in these comments, and there are a lot of you.
Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence. Let’s maybe consider that, maybe, just maybe, of at least 28 women coming forward, with one confirmed rape conviction, that he has raped multiple women/girls. Just fucking maybe. This isn’t about your brother’s/cousin’s/dude from high school’s crazy ex-wife with a brain tumor, it’s about the president of the United States, maybe hold it to a different standard and stop painting everything with the same brush.
-
No one here is in defense of rapists. Your accusations is exactly why we don’t just “believe women.” Accusations aren’t proof of guilt.
Also, there’s a thing in law that’s called “precedent”.
If you allow accusations to be accepted as legal proof of a thing, the floodgates open to allow this precedent to be applied to ALL things.
We don’t like our boss? Let’s all accuse him of rape! Boom! Prison.
We don’t like the head of our HOA? Let’s all accuse her of embezzlement! Boom! Prison!
There’s a reason proof is required. And it protects everyone. Even the bad guys.
-
In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.
For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.
-
I’ll just copy and paste this again.
At least 28 women/girls have come forward, and he has been convicted of rape and bragged about taking advantage of women, his best friend ran an industry of rape, how much more do you fucking need? Stop defending a rapist.
-
So you saying trump is not rapist? Or you saying trump is rapist but we are not sure? Are you not sure that he is rapist? Are you dumb?
-
-
Exactly 👏👏👏
-
with one confirmed rape conviction,
There, done. Why isn't he behind bars?
This isn’t about your brother’s/cousin’s/dude from high school’s crazy ex-wife with a brain tumor, it’s about the president of the United States, maybe hold it to a different standard
Oh, so that's why he isn't behind bars.
-
-
Not going to defend any rapists on here, I just want to say that anyone knowingly bringing a false allegation against an innocent person for a crime like this, is why so many people demand proof, often when none can exist.
I always want to believe what victims say. I usually go by the mantra of "trust but verify".
To anyone who is genuinely a victim, all of my compassion goes out to you. I hope you are doing well and that the perpetrator is behind bars. I know they often aren't, but I can hope.
Take care
-
It's still weird when so many people came out of it and the pictures and everything that can count as "evidence" might not be enough to put someone behind bars. But that doesn't mean you have to make him president.
-
Agreed on all points.
There really shouldn't need to be much evidence in these cases, in my opinion. I believe this specifically because it's often difficult or impossible, depending on the circumstances, to have evidence of the crime.
Often crimes that involve involuntary sexual acts are done in isolation, where only the perpetrator and victim are present, and very little unique physical evidence is generally left behind.
I think that's tragic. I also think that it's deplorable that anyone would bear false witness or make a knowingly false accusation for the same. Doing so casts doubt onto people who are victims of that crime, so now it's harder for them to get their abusers, the criminals that they are, sent to jail where they can no longer harm anyone else.
There's also a measure of doubt that some have sewn that accusations should always be considered false until proven otherwise. Of course, in all legal proceedings, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, is the norm. However, there's a nontrivial number of enablers that shed doubt onto someones abuse without any reason to do so.
Rapists and their enablers need to be sterilized, the old fashioned way, by chopping everything off.
I have no sympathy for such filth in our society. I just wish there was a sure-fire way to prove that anyone who has been a victim, is indeed a victim. So that the courts can do their job and get these fucks out of our society.
And the cheeto in chief is not exempt from this.
Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. Donald Trump is a child rapist.
-
-
-
Because there have been too many cases where women have been proven to have lied. (Which isn't to imply that people are lying about Epstein. This is a general point.)
Let people have due process and release the Epstein files.
-
There's a huge amount of women plus Trump's comments about women. It makes sense to believe them
-
I like the version "Take all women seriously" over "Believe all women".
It addresses both problems - some women false report, but if you take all of them seriously, nobody (theoretically) gets away with committing a crime.
I guess it's not as catchy, though.
-
Well then maybe I don't know...post the rest of this image? Why is it all cropped like this? The fuck?
-
Trump being a rich dude makes him a target for gold diggers. That's why you don't convict someone because someone else said so.
Trump saying something doesn't mean he's telling the truth (actually, that's 99.99% the case whenever he opens his mouth).
Trump being friends with a sex-trafficker does not mean he rapes people... but it sure as hell doesn't help his character (he has none).But he has been convicted already so... lock him up? This should be a non issue, he should be behind bars.
-
-
-
-
Everyone in here asking for physical evidence before convicting because false accusations exist, pretending they've never heard of discovery. You open a case and get a judge to order access to the Epstein files, you don't demand the victims do all the work first. Also, what is a jury for.
-
Plus we aren't even talking about a conviction, we're talking about predators keeping positions of power. Trump shouldn't be where he is, that's obvious
-
I agree with this. 28 different accusations of sexual misconduct (rape, sexual assault, touching, harassment) should be enough one of MANY reasons to keep Trump away from power.
-
I mean, he is also very much a convicted felon and rapist (by any sensible definition of rape)
I'd imagine that the people who put him in power don't much care if he's a pedophile too
-
-
-
surely nothing can go wrong by allowing accusations of ruining your life...
-
You are putting your username to shame by your bad faith argument. Wisdom = zero.
-
-
Sadly I feel like even if the list was fully released and trump is 100% confirmed to have done everything he would still not face any consequences. He would just say it’s a lie or made up and his followers and the news media would agree with him. It’s a sad fucking state this country is in. With all that being said RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!
-
he would still not face any consequences.
If he's above the law then unlawful methods must be used to bring him to justice.
Too bad the US doesn't have guns.-
Oh we have enough guns but when the times come they will stand on the side of tyranny.
-
-
-
...........................because that's not how our justice system has worked at any point in our entire history? Are you serious? One needs actual physical evidence.
Also, why if you believe them, why did you...cut off all their faces? What the....
-
That's not quite accurate. Our justice system has never required physical evidence alone. Testimonial evidence is real evidence, and courts have long recognized that credible witness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction or judgment even without physical proof. This principle is well-established in American jurisprudence.
Courts routinely convict defendants based primarily or entirely on witness testimony in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, sexual assault, and many other crimes where physical evidence may be limited or unavailable.
The key factors are the credibility of witnesses and whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (which can include additional testimony).
Federal and state evidence rules reflect this reality. They establish standards for evaluating witness credibility and reliability, but don't require physical evidence as a prerequisite for conviction.
The burden is on prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof can come through testimonial evidence.
While physical evidence can certainly strengthen a case, requiring it as an absolute necessity would make it impossible to prosecute many serious crimes and would represent a fundamental departure from centuries of legal precedent.
So while physical evidence can be powerful, it's not a prerequisite. Courts weigh the credibility and corroboration of testimony carefully, and independent accounts from multiple witnesses are recognized as particularly probative.
-
This is a rhetoric, guess who’s rhetoric?
Circumstantial evidence is credible evidence. maybe when tons of people are saying the same person raped them, he raped them and we should do something about, rather than arguing in the defense of rapists. Fuck this liberal idealism bullshit take on absolutist or nothing terms of “justice”, use your own god damned brains for once.
-
That would only work if the rapist bragged about raping on tape. Oh, wait...
-
So, there’s a thing in law that’s called “precedent”.
If you allow accusations to be accepted as legal proof of a thing, the floodgates open to allow this precedent to be applied to ALL things.
We don’t like our boss? Let’s all accuse him of rape! Boom! Prison.
We don’t like the head of our HOA? Let’s all accuse her of embezzlement! Boom! Prison!
There’s a reason proof is required. And it protects everyone. Even the bad guys.
-
-
-
There are many people who are too scared to come out
-
Believe women? All of them?
Ask Pam Bondi if the files are relevant. Shes a woman, so whatever she says must be true, right?
Fuck this cheap rage bait and let the files speak.
-
the fuck is this cropping
-
Because a list is a smoking gun. This is why we have a system of law that states that an accusation is not proof of guilt.
-
The only people who argue against Trump being a rotten pedo sex-pest (amongst other things that make him Hell bound) are those purposefully spreading misinformation/not arguing in good faith and the "intellectually challenged" Trump supporters who really bought what he was selling and are now struggling with cognitive dissonance. Ignore them both, and condemn the former. 🤷
-
“No” - GOP, the media, judicial system, maga cult, democrats
-
It's not like a list release it's going to make anyone fall.
There have been other lists before.
Powerful people never suffer because their name are on a list.
But it's good for business to keep people talking about it. It keeps them from taking direct actions which would have meaningful impact.
-
That's why they made "laws" to protect themselves while they cover up the truth and bury the evidence and THEN come out and say that they have done "an investigation" and found no wrongdoing.
-
But then we'd have to believe Ghislaine. How about "believe women; except Ghislaine Maxwell."
-
Conservatives hate women having any rights. They want them to be silent sex toys and house cleaners. That what it comes down to. When the list is published the supreme court will step in and de-risk it for trump and the other pedophiles in our society. That being said, it still needs to come out.
Women voted for trump 45/51 percent in the last election. Not a win, but still way too close for as misogynistic he and conservatives are. Lots of work to be done.
-
Conservatives can't believe women because you can't believe someone you hate and view as inferior.
-
I think the problem you're going to run into is most of the people who were against the metoo movement are the same people who we need to convince.
-
The only woman Donald Trump wants us to believe is Maxwell. He didn't move her to a better prison for nothing.
-
The American electorate has already decided on "believing women". Twice.
-
we already know. figuring out if it’s true is not the point.
-
Believe women, except for one.
-
Because it is incomplete. Any women who actually say anything, would end up in global media and under attack by some of the most powerful people in the world. So a good number will not say anything. Also innocent until proven guilty. Epstein was around a lot of people, but meeting him and raping somebody are two very different things indeed.
-
And yet we all know trump has raped at least a few women, including his first wife. The motherfucker couldn't get more guilty.
-
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
You might want to rephrase this. I think you are referring to administration but it's pretty easy to read it as "Women".
-
I was going to lead with a snide comment like "Amber Heard has entered the chat", but here's the thing... A close friend of mine got absolutely fucked over this way.
One day, out of the blue, his wife went psycho. Divorced him, accused him of abusing the kids, coached the kids to say they were abused, the works.
He lost custody, had court battle after court battle, dealt with the most evil, vile shit said about him, none of which was true.
When he attempted the court mandated visitation she would literally attack him and deny visitation. When he recorded her, she broke the video camera.
Then she up and died from a brain tumor.
He goes to court with the medical evidence for her bizarre behavior, and you'd think that would be it, right? Nope. Court tries to give custody of the kids to HER parents, who are of an age that they can't care for teenagers.
So her parents have to travel from 4 states away to testify that there's no evidence to support the accusations, that he should have custody of his kids.
Whole process took 7 or 8 years and he finally got custody just as one of his kids turned 18 and could do what they wanted anyway.
I’m sorry to hear that happened to your friend. I had a family member who went through uncharacteristic and risk taking behavior before they ultimately passed from a brain tumor. It happens and it is very confusing for everyone involved. Especially since that person, a very accomplished (decorated officer) intelligent person (genius IQ) randomly started on hard drugs, which just confused the situation further. We got them away from that life just in time to get them a diagnosis. The strain and chaos with that type of illness can be devastating.
That being said, I think the number of women in this case, and the context clues, are sufficient that we can conclude that this guy isn’t innocent. We have multiple different testimonies and his own words about young girls and his own daughter to conclude he was involved in that lifestyle at a time when he was high on money, power and a circle that was judgment free. He ran pageants in the 90’s which just… ewww. Also, I mean who calls Epstein at 5am in the morning and leaves messages? Not exactly normal operating hours. If he wasn’t insulated with limousines and a real estate empire this guy would have been drug through the mud in any podunk town for being a total creep. No one would be questioning when word came out, they’d be saying, “oh yeah, that guy, I can see it”
Definitely the vibe, for sure 🤮
Your friend has told you a very unusual set of circumstances that sounds awful. Has he had as many women accused him of abuse as Trump has?
Nope, just the one. He since passed away himself. 😟
His kids ended up being pretty maladjusted for several years, but came out the other side OK. I did lose track of them after he died though, I would imagine that hit them hard. Like their mom it was equally sudden.
In some ways, the point isn’t just convincing people on here that Trump Is a paedophile and rapist. Generally, anyone on Lemmy capable of exhaling and inhaling knows he is.
The point is also whether you can convince such a huge male population to alter their viewpoint by women’s testimony. Though it should make sense, men have had to build up an intense emotional reaction to the possibility of “women’s testimony” and how much more powerful it is societally than theirs.
I’d definitely agree that’s fucked up. And as someone in a more stable life situation, I’d say two or three is all it takes to answer your question. But for so many people who feel out of control of their lives, whether or not I agree with the silly idea “Men are under attack” I can actually understand the sentiment of “Oh, just their word against his? It’s a conspiracy.”
Two separate things, if not even three.
The first point is rule of law, and that's what the "believe women" statement generally refers to. "Believe women" is a nice and simple statement that completely ignores all complexity in a minefield of legal complexity. Relationships (especially ones that end bad) are incredibly complicated and there are ample cases where women lied for some benefit and ample cases where men actually did what they were accused of. Turning that into blank "believe women" or "disbelieve women" would be terrible either way. It would be just as smart as "believe employers" or "believe employees" in work-related lawsuits. So rule of law dictates that judgements need to be evidence-based.
The second point is Epstein. There's ample evidence, ample victims and ample witnesses. If Epstein was still alive, there's very little doubt that he'd be convicted. Sadly he is not and the USA doesn't prosecute dead people, which in cases like this is a real issue since that also means there's much less research into potential co-perpetrators.
Third, there's Trump. In a somewhat decent time line any politician politician worthy of their position accused of a fraction of what Trump was accused (and convicted) of, Trump would have resigned years ago. Sadly Trump is not decent and the US has jack squat of safety mechanisms when it comes to top politicians that are grossly unfit for the office. That's where the Epstein-files come in. They need to be released, but not to convict Trump for anything because it just won't work. There's no justice when it comes to high-ranking politicians in the USA. It's too much of a legal backwater country to hold actually powerful people accountable.
But Trump's followers were sworn in to the Epstein files for years now. That was one of the really big topics during Trump's campaign and it has become much more than just a list of rapists/criminals. If the Epstein files are released and Trump is on them, that could actually turn his base against him, which would be much more valuable than getting him not convicted one more time.
While I agree that your friend's story sucks, custody cases are handled very differently from rape cases. The justice system is prejudiced against men in that case, whereas in rape cases it is prejudiced against women. In both cases it would be nice if the prejudice is somehow removed.
It's less bias against women (demonstrated by male accusers of female perps having even worse odds), but rather that it's an accusation of a serious crime and thus has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is complicated by very many cases having exactly 2 witnesses (accuser and accused) and often little or no other evidence.
The usual counter to this is to claim that accuser testimony should always be believed and should itself be proof beyond a reasonable doubt because no one would ever lie about this sort of thing, but that doesn't jive with reality - for example, look at the Duke lacrosse case, or Brian Banks, or Tracy West accusing her ex (to use a few that got significant media attention), or those exonerated by the Innocence Project (a majority faced sex crime charges). For the first two of those, the accuser actually admitted to lying, (even if Crystal Mangum waited until 18 years later while in prison for an unrelated murder and Wanetta Gibson waited until the person she falsely accused had served 5 years in prison and was on the sex offender registry and partway through his 5 years of probation and then had to be secretly recorded because she didn't want to reveal to truth publicly and risk losing the damages she was awarded from the school district).
Yeah, because the courts are clearly biased toward male rape victims. 🙄
I dont know if its any solice to you, but the courts are changing. This story feels like its at least 20 years old, if not more so. My wife is a Family Law attorney, and shes shared story after story where the courts biased is slipping away. There are even entire national law firms dedicated to mens divorce/family law that thrived because they knew how to navigate the bias.
Id like to think your buddy's story would have a different ending if it happened today
It definitely is.
This is why I tend to stay neutral on things like this until evidence credible evidence comes out but if it happened to someone I knew personally and god I hope it never does I'd still support them though unless evidence came out that the person I knew was falsifying the claim
The Internet is not a legal court and never intended to be one and judge's must remain impartial and neutral
This doesn't mean you should just deny the claim of someone if they have claimed to he abused online, just stay neutral and give them the resources to report it and get it investigated so it can go to a real legal court
Yeah, that's anecdotal. And irrelevant.
Look, that sounds like a terrible situation. However, if you're suggesting his experience is an acceptable excuse to assume women are lying if they accuse a man of sexual assault, then go fuck yourself. I'm not even kidding.
And if you think anyone, without even considering gender should just be believed without any evidence, then you too, should go fuck yourself.
A judicial system does not function on feelings or beliefs. It functions on science. You need evidence in order to consider a position fact. Potentially ruining people's lives because of personal feelings, is fucking evil.
Edit. The person you replied to mentioned nothing about assuming women are lying, all they said was that they are capable of doing so.
I'm just saying that false accusations happen, a lot, and yeah, my one friend is just a single data point, OTOH:
https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/articles/false-reports-moving-beyond-issue-successfully-investigate-and-prosecute-non-s
"The article begins by reviewing up-to-date research suggesting that the rate of false reporting for sexual assault is in the range of 2-8%."
That's not me saying this, that's the National Sexual Violence Resource Center saying this.
So in a year with 734,630 rapes*:
https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
Somewhere between 14,692 and 58,770 are going to be false accusations? That's a lot. Like "a lot" a lot. Potentially 10K more than the annual number of gun deaths and 2x the number of gun suicides.
*Unclear if that's an estimated number of rapes or the reported number of rapes. I'm assuming reported because it's the only number we've got here and there's no way to know the actual number with certainty.
Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. An accusation alone is not that. You paint it as assuming women are lying, but you instead want to treat their word as damning proof unto itself, while people like Crystal Mangum, Tracy West and Wanetta Gibson (to name some who got media attention) thoroughly leave the reasonable doubt in place.