« The news story Rosie O'Donnell will skip | Main | As you may have noticed ... »
May 01, 2007
Day 21 ...
and well, you know St Amanda is never going to apologize for her participation in the Duke rape hoax mob hysterics.
Hell, why should she when she's got her very own little Grover Dill to play to her Scut Farkus.
Technorati: Duke Lacrosse, Nifong, Rape Hoax
Posted by Darleen at May 1, 2007 10:39 PM
Comments
How're those WMDs working out, by the way?
You know, slavish devotion to the patriarchy won't spare you. Ask any sorority girl or stripper who's been raped.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte at May 2, 2007 05:03 AM
You can ask me, Darleen. I've been raped twice. TWICE. Wrong place wrong time, and bad choices. you can either hate everyone forever (the Victim Mentality) or you can get over it (the RightGirl Mentality). Do I think the Duke kids are guilty? No. Do I think the stripper made bad choices? Yes. Life is about lessons. I hope she learned the one about not lying and I hope Nifong learned the one about not hating the rich kids.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl at May 2, 2007 06:44 AM
slavish devotion to the patriarchy won't spare you
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Is that a spoofer? HAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: Beth at May 2, 2007 07:05 AM
And...only sorority girls and strippers get raped? Or is that just what happens to most/all sorority girls and strippers, because of their Slavish Devotion to Teh Patriarchy™?
RG, which were you? You must have been one, because sorority girls and strippers are "slaves to the patriarchy" and end up getting raped for it. (Isn't that sort of like blaming the victim?)
Posted by: Beth at May 2, 2007 07:12 AM
I don't blame the stripper all that much. I mean, she's got a history of imbalance, after all. I do blame Mike Nifong. And Amanda, for maintaining that if you're on the side of the victim, you can say and do anything.
Provided you're not Karl Rove, of course.
Posted by: Slartibartfast at May 2, 2007 08:29 AM
You were wrong about the WMDs and never apologized so it is okay for Amanda to be wrong about the Duke Lacrosse Team and never apologize!!!!!!!
Posted by: anon at May 2, 2007 10:25 AM
Hey, Amanda,
How do you feel about the DA conspiring with the DNA lab to hide exculpatory evidence from the defendants?
I really want to know if you're for or against civil rights violations. Or is it a case of on who's civil rights are being violated?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at May 2, 2007 12:15 PM
Deer anon,
Please go back to school and take a basic logic course. It'll help you avoid embarrassing yourself. Or you can look up non sequitur. HTH. HAND.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at May 2, 2007 12:17 PM
Pretty sure anon is a spoof, IRA.
Amanda should just admit she was wrong. Sadly, much of modern popular feminist discourse has been reduced to spouting unexamined embarrassing cliches like "patriarchy" and "rape culture".
Of course, Darleen isn't exactly covering herself in glory with nonsense like this:
“Innocent” has a very specific LEGAL meaning, far and beyond “not guilty” or “not enough evidence to proceed.”
Posted by: Josh at May 2, 2007 04:12 PM
Josh
I'll just take it that you are ignorant of the finer points of the law.
The Duke three had charges formally filed against them. When the DA went back and dismissed those charges, but the record of the players arrest and filed charges remain in the official record.
Charges can be dismissed for several reasons... "insufficience evidence" if it looks like the DDA will not be able to get a conviction. Or maybe the charges are dismissed "in the interest of justice", ie the person has already pled to another case, or the case is really old or the person has already served time on another case, etc ....
Neither one of those reasons for dismissal means the person charged is INNOCENT of the charges.
HOWEVER, when the AG used the word "innocent" he was specifically saying the rape alleged that night in that house by those accused never happened. NEVER HAPPENED.
At this point, the Duke players attorneys can make a motion in the court for a Directed verdit of Innocence (or whatever the local terminology)
When such directed verdict is rendered, then ALL RECORDS CONCERNING THE DUKE THREE ARE EXPUNGED.
All court records, all arrest records, all reports, notes, tapes, testimony, depositions....
EVERY single thing is destroyed, no copies allowed to exist. It's as if the whole incident never occured.
So, Josh, maybe before you declare something "nonsense" you might like to have a conversation or two with someone involved in the judiciary.
Posted by: Darleen at May 2, 2007 07:21 PM
You know, for what it's worth, I don't think the lacrosse players are all that concerned about getting an apology from one blogger. I wouldn't keep pestering Amanda.
Posted by: Ben at May 2, 2007 09:58 PM
Slart,
And Amanda, for maintaining that if you're on the side of the victim, you can say and do anything.
But then, Amanda isn't on the side of the victims. She's quite anti-victim in this case. Isn't it ironic? It's like raiiiiin on your wedding day.... Grrrrrrrr....
Amanda,
You know, slavish devotion to the patriarchy won't spare you.
From what? The Matriarchy?
You're gonna want to grow some teeth in that snapping turtle of yours. Otherwise you're just moving air.
Posted by: Pablo at May 3, 2007 12:37 AM
Thanks, Darleen, but I learned that in 1st year crim. The point is that innocent just means "we don't think they did it." It has no "specific legal meaning", as you asserted. Juries don't return verdicts of innocent. It's actually a directed verdict of acquittal, at least in most jurisdictions, not a "directed verdict of innocence."
And, of course, a defendant in NC is entitled to expunction of records after dismissal of charges, or a verdict of acquittal, not, as you assert, after "directed verdict of innocence". See N.C. Gen. Stat. S. 15A-146.
Maybe you should, you know, get an actual law degree before you play Perry Mason on the internets.
Posted by: Josh at May 3, 2007 07:28 AM
Maybe you should, you know, get an actual law degree before you play Perry Mason on the internets.
Ooooh! Then you could be like Mike Nifong! Yay!
Posted by: Pablo at May 3, 2007 12:51 PM
Or Alberto Gonzalez. Hack prosecutors come in all stripes.
Posted by: Josh at May 3, 2007 01:18 PM
You know, Josh, if Gonzalez had ever prosecuted a case in his life, especially a bullshit one, you might just be right!
But, alas, it is not to be.
Posted by: Pablo at May 3, 2007 02:59 PM
You know Pablo, if you understood that the AG is the chief prosecutor of the United States, ultimately responsible for overseeing every criminal case tried by the federal government, you might have a point!
But alas, it is not to be.
Posted by: Josh at May 3, 2007 05:21 PM
Gonzales is the Attorney General. While he supervises prosecutors, his position encompasses far more than his role as administrator of the US Attorneys. What you're suggesting is akin to calling the Secretary of Defense a soldier.
And Gonzales has never prosecuted a case in his life, as I mentioned, which makes calling him a hack prosecutor fairly asinine.
But bring the snappy bullshit comeback on anyway. I'm sure everyone is on pins and needles in anticipation of the glow.
But, maybe???
Posted by: Pablo at May 3, 2007 06:44 PM
He's a hack, and the chief prosecutor for the federal goverment. Therefore he's a hack prosecutor. And you're an idiot.
Posted by: Josh at May 8, 2007 10:34 AM
There's that snappy bullshit comeback we've all been breathlessly anticipating! Bravo, Josh. Bravo. Now that you've done logic, how about tying us a science pretzel next?
Posted by: Pablo at May 13, 2007 09:07 AM