Best false accusation story ive read in a while

zarby · Feb 15, 2006, 01:30 PM

One man had a practice of recording his visitation exchanges. His recordings actually saved him. In one instance, a cop pulled him over. The man's ex-wife reported that he had kicked in the door of her house. He showed the cop the video of the exchange. The video continued all the way until the cop pulled him over. The cop was impressed and let the man go. As strange as it sounds, the family law judge was not pleased about the recording and ordered the man to stop. Imagine that! I have seen Orders somewhat similar to this in several instances. They don't want the man to be able to prove the truth. I don't know what else one can conclude. In no other area of law would a judge order such a thing. Imagine a judge ordering Walmart not to videotape to catch thieves? In general, a person has a right to protect themselves and there is no law preventing recordings of public places. I think recording sexual encounters would probably be unlawful for several reasons. However, if you are charged with rape, those laws would be the least of one's worries. I would definitely show the tape absent evidence of consent to the recording or compelling need such as a rape charge. It is rather offensive to make such a recording without consent but certainly it would be a smart thing to do in a lot of ways. Frankly, you could extend that to recording everything in one's whole life. When it is said you pushed your wife or whatever, just show the tape and say "ha ha." Of course, what a terrible way to live especially with respect to your "life partner."

Stallywood · Feb 15, 2006, 02:26 PM

Quote from: "Rob"

I have often wondered, now that spy cams are so readily and cheaply available, if it doesn't start to make sense for rigging up your bedroom/home to secretly tape and record your sexual activities as a safety net in case of a false accusation of rape.

Yes I know its illegal. But should it be in the environment we live in? I imagine Kobe Bryant might have actually been overjoyed if he found out the papparazi had filmed him and his "un-named" accuser.

This is what it is coming down to.

I know a guy who does just that. He said he would rather go down for unlawful recording, that a sex offense.
Stally

Sir Percy · Feb 15, 2006, 03:57 PM

The concept of Justice is not difficult to comprehend. By 10 years old, most children are quite familiar with it. Simple justice demands that liars should be penalised. That's in normal social intercourse. There, refutation and approbation is usually sufficient. In a Court where oaths are sworn to tell the truth, lies should be severely punished. False allegations to Authority is an attempt by one person to get an Authority - that is the power of many persons, you and me - to inflict damage on a third party. "Let's you and him fight". The 'you', we who stand behind Authority, need to give a slap in the mouth to false accusers who want us to damage someone we do not know or have a problem with.

The Judge in that case redressed one wrong - put the children with the less damaging parent - but let another pass by. That wrong, the false allegation, damages and insults us all and is exacerbated by the Judge failing in his duty and bringing the Authority of the People into disrepute.

LSBeene · Feb 16, 2006, 03:21 AM

Quote from: "Malakas"

Quote
I have often wondered, now that spy cams are so readily and cheaply available, if it doesn't start to make sense for rigging up your bedroom/home to secretly tape and record your sexual activities as a safety net in case of a false accusation of rape.

Yes I know its illegal.

It's illegal to put cameras in your own home? Things are worse than I thought.

Yes they are. About a decade ago (this is from memory - so I certainly would not mind if someone added to my post) 2 Dallas Cowboy football (American) players were arrested for rape. The "victim" claimed the two held a gun on her and forced her to have sex. One of the players videotaped the sex.

See, it turned out he had been falsely accused before, for extortion $$$, and he paid the woman. So, he set up a camera to save his LIFE. And .... what did the tape show?

That it was SHE who initiated the sex, that only ONE of the players was even there, that no gun, force, coercioin, or threats were made, and that she was the one to do all the "opening moves".

What did the media do? They were all over the "typical superstar male player attitude" about "taking what they wanted" from women. Until one guy (from memory) got bail, and got the tape from his house (or the cops got it - can't remember).

What was the response of the press? They STILL refused to name the "victim" and feminist advocates were interviewed as to be saying "well, then they should be prosecuted for taping the sex" at LEAST. And ... the next day it was off the media radar (big f*cking surprise).

Yes, many states have laws that make it illegal to tape sexual encounters w/out consent of all parties being taped. This DOES make some sense, as in NY it came about due to one landlord who was taping his cute tenents in the shower and in their bedrooms. HOWEVER, it should be ammended to say that if the taping was done in "self defense" (such as in the case of the COWBOYS) then no prosecutioin should happen.

As to how often there are false claims of rape?

According to the "Kanin study" - a study in a mid sized city, where the ONLY criteria was the woman ADMITTING it was a false accusation - it was just over 40% were lying.

The AF (Air Force) did a study using the SAME criteria (only the woman admitting it was false) wherin women were about to be given a polygraph or just had taken one ... it was OVER 60% admitted to lying.

Also, (this is from memory - sorry no cite) a famous RAPE prosecutor estimated that 40-50% of the claims that came across his desk were false. And this guy PROSECUTED rapes for a LIVING.

I do not know, nor do any of us know, the "holy grail" # for false accusations - but it's surely no the much touted "2%" that feminists claim (from Susan Brownmillers book: "Against Our Will").

I miss you guys!! I got a day off this week (yippee!!) and so I am in my "pod" on the 'net.

Hugs and kisses (am I nuts or what!?)

Steven

zarby · Feb 16, 2006, 04:52 AM

I don't recall the Dallas Cowboy story you reference. If I had heard that story, I am sure I would remember it.

The media is absolutely complicit in all this. That should have been a huge story. That woman's actions were worse arguably than say what OJ Simpson may have done or what that guy in California may have done.

Let's face it that woman acted intentionally. She sought to destroy lives. I am assuming that if OJ was guilty or the california guy, those were probably crimes of rage or passion -- less culpable.

The media is all over the OJ thing and the california thing but completely ignore this Cowboy thing? You cannot say celebrity is the difference. These Cowboy guys were fairly significant celebrities. The california guy was not a celebrity at all -- I think pretty much a regular Joe.

It infuriates me that the feminists referenced would criticize him for taping the sexual encounter and ignore the huge evil attempted by the woman.

I see hardly anything as more evil than attempting to set up an innocent man for a very serious crime -- ruining his entire life.

Sir Percy · Feb 16, 2006, 05:26 AM

Zarby. Sir. You are a Lawyer. You see the same arguement in the Courts every week. Well, its mirror image. Its the one used in reverse for bugging someone. He/she is a suspect, therefore they are already 'in the frame', so we can bug them to get evidence. The operative issue is the pre-judgement. Feminists pre-judge men. The man is always in the wrong so his rights can be dismissed. He doesn not have to have committed a crime for his rights to privacy being overturned. Men cannot use evidence which exonerates. Only that which convicts.

BRIAN · Feb 16, 2006, 05:41 AM

Quote from: "zarby"

I don't recall the Dallas Cowboy story you reference. If I had heard that story, I am sure I would remember it.

I remember it the guy had played for the Raiders not Dallas. His name was Darrell Russell, the woman accused him of video taping two friends "raping" her after she was "drugged". The charges were dropped on when the prosecutors found the video tape did not support the woamns claim. Those observing the tape could see the woman was quite lucid and cohereant and not at all an unwilling participant in a amature sex vid.

zarby · Feb 16, 2006, 06:00 AM

I agree, Sir Percy.

There absolutely is prejudgment.

The prejudgment is so strong that the most obvious things are not seen.

This is true in family law where the man is the scoundrel when he is really the victim. It is also true in criminal law where even a murder victim is assumed to be the oppressor not the victim.

When a man walks into court, it is not so much him that is on trial. He is already guilty based on assumed scenarios possibly not applicable at all.

He must have ran off with his secretary -- a young one at that. He most have abused her one way or another. He must not care about his children. In many cases, the woman is guilty of exactly what it is assumed the man is guilty of. It doesn't matter. He is being tried on the politically correct assumptions not based on the facts of his case.

If he dare fight against these assumed scenarios whether with videotape evidence or otherwise, it is entirely possible the system retaliates.

Not always, but sometimes.

There was a case where the woman tried for round two. She had divorced the man once and she wanted to divorce him again. She claimed common law marriage after the first divorce. The problem is that she had signed into hospitals, etc. all very recently and checked the "single" box each time. The documentary evidence amounted to very recent admissions by her that she was not married. She came across a big liar. The Judge actually did the right thing. There was no common law marriage. This woman was out in the hall crying and squeeling and making a scene after the hearing. She got caught and yet nevertheless even I felt sorry for her. I was the lawyer her revealed her lies. The Judge came out and got in the elevator and was looking at the floor the whole time. I think the Judge felt bad for her. The system worked but everybody was uncomfortable. Women are not supposed to lose. Damn you if you prove a woman done wrong. Don't do it again. That is a message out there.

The Biscuit Queen · Feb 16, 2006, 06:41 AM

Hey Beene! We miss you too, and you can certainly send hugs and kisses this way

:kiss: Right back at ya!

So what does one do on a day off in a sandbox, build castles?

Wish I was going to be around all day, but I just made plans- couldn't think of a good reason not to go, so I said yes. I need to be more assertive I guess. :roll:

You enjoy your day, Jen

LSBeene · Feb 16, 2006, 08:17 AM

Quote from: "BRIAN"

Quote from: "zarby"
I don't recall the Dallas Cowboy story you reference. If I had heard that story, I am sure I would remember it.

I remember it the guy had played for the Raiders not Dallas. His name was Darrell Russell, the woman accused him of video taping two friends "raping" her after she was "drugged". The charges were dropped on when the prosecutors found the video tape did not support the woamns claim. Those observing the tape could see the woman was quite lucid and cohereant and not at all an unwilling participant in a amature sex vid.

Brian, Hello and welcome !!

No I am just about SURE it was 2 Dallas dudes. I am very visually oriented (I'm a guy - Lingerie anyone!? - j/k) .. but here are the details I DO remember. Black dudes, both. One I had not heard of, (the one IN the video) and the other was VERY famous but was constatly in trouble (I think drug charges). Also, I clearly remember the dude as he walked to the car after the tape had come to light saying (this I remember explicitly) "don't lose your intensity .... don't lose your intensity" (referring to the press and that the story didn't just "go away".

Maybe that will jog memories. It was in the early to mid 90's.

Anywho ... Yep I got a day off. Ya know how most MRAs can learn to speak well, well, lol, I've found that I'm so tired that I look at some of my posts and realize that sleep deprivation and political activism don't mix well, lol.

It's all good here. As long as Iran doesn't pre-empt or we don't ... I'm CLOSE to the "fun times" if that happens. Sure, as long as it's conventional we'd f*ck Hadji up, but I don't expect Hadji to play fair. It's not in his interests.

Nah, you guys worry too much. I'm a Christian. I know where I'm going. In any case, I'm going home.

Sleep tight, we got the door.

Steven

LSBeene · Feb 16, 2006, 08:32 AM

Ummmm,, :? :oops:

Ok, I know I post kinda corny ... and I don't wanna come off dramatic. I dunno, I'm just living a different life than most. If soldiers had the internet in Vietnam I imagine the posts they would type would read like mine.

At least, I guess so. So, if I come off weird or stupid or what not ... It's not my intention. I'm just living in a kinda "Twilight Zone" kinda stage of my-life/history/having-the-internet ....

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/american_heroes/index.cfm

Any how ... I hope I don't come off as false or like some sap. Well, ok, I AM a sap, but that's not the point.

Ok, this is the point where Beene is tired and revokes his own posting priveliges for the night.

Shutting up.

Steven

BRIAN · Feb 16, 2006, 08:47 AM

Quote from: "LSBeene"

No I am just about SURE it was 2 Dallas dudes. I am very visually oriented (I'm a guy - Lingerie anyone!? - j/k) .. but here are the details I DO remember. Black dudes, both. One I had not heard of, (the one IN the video) and the other was VERY famous but was constatly in trouble (I think drug charges). Also, I clearly remember the dude as he walked to the car after the tape had come to light saying (this I remember explicitly) "don't lose your intensity .... don't lose your intensity" (referring to the press and that the story didn't just "go away".

Maybe that will jog memories. It was in the early to mid 90's.

That was Michael Irvin back in 1996 I believe and yes he was involved in several drug incidents. The Darrell Russle thing was just a couple of years ago.

dr e · Feb 16, 2006, 08:56 AM

I think it was Michael Irvin and Eric Williams in 1997 who were falsley accused of rape by a topless dancer.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n12_v92/ai_19666513

Sir Percy · Feb 16, 2006, 04:14 PM

Ohh, I don't know Beene. You come across as pretty lucid to me. Considering the burden you carry, without a steed to share the weight, you do pretty well. Keep the helmut on.

(Side note - when I was in combat in the Far as opposed to your Near East, the lingerie manufacturers used to make life sized posters of pretty girls in their lightweights and send them to us by the crate-full. We were grateful.)