Is Kobe Bryant admitting to rape?

Unfortunately, there are many women out there like you, who automatically assume that any man who is accused of rape is a rapist. I'm not sure how you can go about basing your "opinions" on gender alone, and not consider yourself a bigot.

 

I think that in about 99% of cases where someone is accused of rape, something very bad and nonconsensual really did happen. This goes for guys and girls, it's perfectly possible for a woman to rape someone. That said, there are the occasional liars who are accusing someone for some reward (money, custody of children, etc.). What's really sad is how these people lower the credibility of those who are genuinely raped, and make it more difficult for them to come forward and get justice in their cases. I don't know about this case - I haven't read all the facts, but usually the evidence will speak for itself in determining the validity of a case.

 

Bullshit.

The "character" of murder victims isn't taken into consideration.

The "Character" of mugging victims isn't taken into consideration. ("Hey, if he didn't want to be mugged, why was he wearing that $5,000 suit and that Rolex watch in public?")

The "character" of NO crime victim is taken into account, because THEY (the victim) are not supposed to be on trial. Unless you are raped. Then you can only get a fair trial, if you are loaded and a nun.

"Feminsts" didn't "make up" date rape. Rapists did.

 

well, what i've heard form most of the people in my acquaintance, both men and women, is that here she is having sex with all these guys, and she says "no" to kobe bryant? she went to his hotel room at 3AM, and she had to be forced into sex even though she's proven that she DOES in fact enjoy sex. for the most part, the general concensus hereabouts is that she wanted to have sex with him then claim she was raped so that she could get money out of it.


me, i don' tknow what happened in that room. i don't know if it was rape, if it was consensual but got too kinky for her, i have no idea. but i know enough about a two girls in my experience who HAVE cried rape without cause except that they felt bad about it later. not everyone is pure in their intentions. which is a crying shame. it becomes a matter of crying wolf. i'm th perfect example. i no longer believe every claim to rape i hear.

 

I don't automatically assume it. I never said that because he was accused he automatically did it. I have my opinions based on what I've heard about it. Not just because he is a man, that's absurd.

 

Actually, I think the figure would be closer to 94%. About 6% of rape accusations are proven to be false, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a tad higher. Rape is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed, and the fact that there are people out there who would falsely accuse someone of it, is disgusting.

 

I think everyone here would appreciate it if you wouldn't use vulgar language; this is a serious issue, and needs to be debated in a rational manner. Profanity is just not appropriate. Thanks.

Actually, yes, considering the nature of the crime, the accuser's character does have to be taken into consideration. I guess I could expend a great deal of time explaining to you why this is the case, but by the sounds of it, it won't make any difference. Clearly there's no possibility of making you realize that it is in fact possible for a woman to falsely accuse a man of rape, that it is necessary to determine whether the alleged victim is in fact a victim.

 

Well, obviously you haven't heard much reliable evidence because there seems to be evidence that suggests that the encounter was consentual, and that she is in fact after money.

 

Why do you people all assume automatically that he is guilty? and what is the use of so much emotion?

Character is something that a judge looks at when he puts some one on a trial. Jail is more than spending some quality time in a locked up place and most judges know that.

 

"when he puts someone on trial" YES. ONLY OFFENDERS are put on trial. Victims are NOT! Look at Kobe's "character" (he was cheating on his wife while she was pregnant!) DO NOT look at a victims. WHY, because she ISN'T on trial. The way you wrote your post kinda tells me you think the VICTIM herself was "on trial" and, she was not. (well she WAS, but she wasn''t supposed to be.)

WHY the emotion? Because a womyn has to prove herself of flawless "character" in order to accuse someone of rape. Slutty, skanky girls get raped, too. Do they have less rights to their own bodies than virgins and nuns? Seems so. SO WHAT if she has sex with 1,000 men, it was her choice who she has sex with. She has EVERY right to say NO, to Bryant. Whether she went into his room or not. Because you enter a man's room does that mean he can do ANYTHING to your body he wants and YOU have no recourse? Seems so.

 

Nobody said anything about her having to have a "flawless" character, and nobody said anything about "slutty, skanky girls" having "less rights" and that they can't be raped. But her character does have to be taken into account. And yes, this is something that also occurs in murder cases. There are women who have murdered their husbands who have claimed that they had to do so because they were living in abusive relationships, and many have received lenient sentences as a result. Obviously, the character of the murder victim is on trial here, isn't it? In terms of rape cases, it needs to be determined whether the alleged victim is not fabricating the story for alterior motives; in this case, this is apperently what has happened. There is evidence to the effect that she had sex with another man within 24 hours of being "raped" by Kobe; added to this is the fact that a civil suit has been filed. Conclusion: she's after money. There are women out there who are like this, and why as a feminist it doesn't infuriate you, is beyond me.

 

Basically because he's a man, and the supposed victim was a woman. Feminists have cultivated a victim mentality that most women have accepted. They see the fact that a lowly, ordinary woman has accused a famous, wealthy male of rape, and they immediately identify with her because she represents all of their victimization by "patriarchy". So rather than trying to be objective and try to determine the truth about the matter, they adhere to subjective preconceived notions, and anyone who contradicts them, well, they get shouted down and denounced.

 

in such a case, where it's one person's word against the other's, as with many cases, i feel justified in questioning the characters of both parties involved.

 

Yes, I think they are watching too much life-time television.

 

How come other rape trials are never covered? Simple : Kobe has money. That's also the reason while the trial has been changing so much.

 

That statement alone says more than enough.

People should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean the victim, whether it's a woman or not, should be made so suffer for coming forward. There are many cases of rape every year that go unreported because people like this try to turn them into the bad guy.

Is you're answer for everything to blame feminists? And weren't you the guy on that last thread trying to explain why that anti-"feminist" site wasn't really all that bad, and that their statement about how men shouldn't have "given" women legal rights wasn't an anti woman statement?

Of course you're going to take up for Kobe, even if we had all the proof in the world that he had in fact raped this girl.

Personally, I don't know if he did it or not...seems like it could go either way. Perhaps I should simply start assuming he's guilty since he's a man? After all, you seem to think he's innocent simply because a woman is accusing him of it.

 

That is EXACTLY what some (including the judge) is saying.

How can anyone even COMPARE a wife beater getting killed, when his wife finally takes self defense into her own hands to a slightly slutty girl getting raped? Did Kobe have sex with this womyn in SELF DEFENSE? You argument has absolutely no merit in the way you "compared" the two absolutely different situations. No one rapes in "self defense!"

 

The difference in rape is that there is often doubt as to whether a crime has actually been commited or not.

For most crimes this decision is made before the case reaches court - then its just a case of deciding guilt or innocence, but with rape the defence in court is often that the sex was with consent, hence there is a decision to be made by the jurors as to whether there was a crime commited AT ALL, so they need background information on the accuser and the defendant to try and make that decision, before they can decide guilt or innocence.

In murder cases you can be sure that other possibilities (suicide etc) are checked before the case gets as far as court, same with most other crimes (if i accuse someone of arson because they burnt down my house you can be sure i'll be investigated to make sure I didn't do it myself!), and in most of these cases there will be unarguable evidence as to a crime being commited. With rape there is often no such evidence, only evidence of there being a sexual encounter.

The point Paul was making (i think) was that the wife doing the killing may not have been doing it in SELF DEFENCE, she may just have woke up one morning and thought

"i want to kill my husband, how cool is it that he slapped me once and the police have a record of it, i'll just claim constant abuse and get off with self defence"

So she claims she murdered him because the relationship was abusive, even though what happened was he slapped her once because she was throwing plates at him.

The character of the husband (or victim) would be vitally important in a situation like this, and would be taken into account. Especially if he turned out to like getting in fights with men in bars every so often.

There are some quite famous examples of where the victim is put "on trial" by the accused defence team, the Louise Woodward case for example - her lawyers pointed the finger of blame straight at the parents of the child who died, the OJ Simpson case where the character of his wife was questioned at the trial. The list could go on.

On another topic entirely, surely it would be better if both parties in rape cases were treated to confidentiality - Kobe Bryant in this case will be stuck with the old "no smoke, without fire - something must have gone on" mentality, and the woman who accused him will always be treated like a liar by some and a martyr by others.

 

kobe is sooooo not guilty. that bitch just wanted his money. nobody has sex with someone consentually a few hours after being raped

 

Quote; nobody has sex with someone consentually a few hours after being raped


Wow, is that definitely true...I haven't paid much attention to this case(I hate the Lakers ), but that does seem pretty damn suspicious!