|
Post by huskerrob on Dec 6, 2019 13:32:44 GMT -5
our system of law starts at the position the accused is innocent ... the founders of our system made a point, that it is better (from a societal consideration) to have 10 guilty people go free than to have 1 innocent person get convicted. lots of post on this thread have been assumptions by people just throwing their ignorant opinion from the direction of their bias. Assigning such vitriol to either party without knowing what occurred or didn't occur is horrible. You're talking about criminal law, and this is civil law. In a civil law case it's one party versus another, and there is no presupposition about which party gets the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the issues surrounding sexual assault are complicated. So often it happens behind closed doors, where there is no evidence except for the claims of one person versus another. And yet, we as a society can not allow this to mean that it is an unpunishable crime. even in civil court the defendant starts from a position of innocence. We would do better to talk about ways to reduce the risks of this crime occurring than talking about someone's guilt or innocence in complete ignorance to the case facts. For instance, we as a society need to make it fundamental that going to someone's room is a social event, never professional, and as such it should be the professional norm to deny any invites for which no social interests are involved. Hotels provide plenty of options to conduct any type of professional interaction in a setting of privacy to not ever need to go to a room to conduct business. No matter who is guilty or innocent, both lost the protections they could have used, simply by making this mistake.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 6, 2019 14:01:34 GMT -5
even in civil court the defendant starts from a position of innocence. I really don't think this is true, but I'm only basing this on instructions I've had as a juror. I'm not a legal scholar. We would do better to talk about ways to reduce the risks of this crime occurring than talking about someone's guilt or innocence in complete ignorance to the case facts. For instance, we as a society need to make it fundamental that going to someone's room is a social event, never professional, and as such it should be the professional norm to deny any invites for which no social interests are involved. Hotels provide plenty of options to conduct any type of professional interaction in a setting of privacy to not ever need to go to a room to conduct business. No matter who is guilty or innocent, both lost the protections they could have used, simply by making this mistake. This is getting into the details of the specific accusation. But I'll just note, I've had business discussions in people's rooms while on business trips. In fact, some business-oriented hotels are set up precisely for this, with each room being like a little suite that has a working area and a bedroom area. This can be for several reasons, but at least one of which is that sometimes you don't want to conduct business in a public space. The whole idea of positive consent is that there is NEVER an implied consent just because you entered someone's home, hotel room, car, bedroom, or whatever. And in this particular case, Tennant claimed she was hesitant to follow Walton to his room, but he assured her it was not a "social event". Your proposed rule erases the idea of requiring positive consent and essentially replaces it with one of "good girls don't go into hotel rooms with men -- and if they do, they get what's coming to them". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intend this, but it's the effect of what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by odinaka on Dec 6, 2019 15:04:28 GMT -5
You're talking about criminal law, and this is civil law. In a civil law case it's one party versus another, and there is no presupposition about which party gets the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the issues surrounding sexual assault are complicated. So often it happens behind closed doors, where there is no evidence except for the claims of one person versus another. And yet, we as a society can not allow this to mean that it is an unpunishable crime. even in civil court the defendant starts from a position of innocence. We would do better to talk about ways to reduce the risks of this crime occurring than talking about someone's guilt or innocence in complete ignorance to the case facts. For instance, we as a society need to make it fundamental that going to someone's room is a social event, never professional, and as such it should be the professional norm to deny any invites for which no social interests are involved. Hotels provide plenty of options to conduct any type of professional interaction in a setting of privacy to not ever need to go to a room to conduct business. No matter who is guilty or innocent, both lost the protections they could have used, simply by making this mistake. Ok, just to make sure I understand you, if a lady comes into a man's hotel room, or vice versa, then all bets are off? Regardless of the intention, social or business, being in your room is not an invitation to sexually assault anyone. A woman/man may want to spend time with you just to get to know you better or enjoys your company, but may not want to have sex with you. And a colleague agreeing to work on a joint assignment or have work related discussion in your hotel room does not indicate they're hot for you. Why are you making men sound like sexual savages who lack control? May God help your sons if this is the nonsense you're teaching them.
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Dec 6, 2019 19:15:48 GMT -5
even in civil court the defendant starts from a position of innocence. We would do better to talk about ways to reduce the risks of this crime occurring than talking about someone's guilt or innocence in complete ignorance to the case facts. For instance, we as a society need to make it fundamental that going to someone's room is a social event, never professional, and as such it should be the professional norm to deny any invites for which no social interests are involved. Hotels provide plenty of options to conduct any type of professional interaction in a setting of privacy to not ever need to go to a room to conduct business. No matter who is guilty or innocent, both lost the protections they could have used, simply by making this mistake. Ok, just to make sure I understand you, if a lady comes into a man's hotel room, or vice versa, then all bets are off? Regardless of the intention, social or business, being in your room is not an invitation to sexually assault anyone. A woman/man may want to spend time with you just to get to know you better or enjoys your company, but may not want to have sex with you. And a colleague agreeing to work on a joint assignment or have work related discussion in your hotel room does not indicate they're hot for you. Why are you making men sound like sexual savages who lack control? May God help your sons if this is the nonsense you're teaching them.
if a lady comes into a man's room or a man into a lady's room, it SHOULD BE a social visit, not professional. Social visits don't validate rape, as nothing does. Social visits don't validate assault & battery. Don't be an ass
|
|
|
Post by Mark Richards on Dec 6, 2019 19:17:52 GMT -5
Lifetime Movie coming
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 6, 2019 19:28:46 GMT -5
if a lady comes into a man's room or a man into a lady's room, it SHOULD BE a social visit, not professional. Social visits don't validate rape, as nothing does. Social visits don't validate assault & battery. Well, I guess that's your opinion. Some of my coworkers are women, and if we were on a business trip and one of them invited me into her room to work on something, I wouldn't hesitate any more than if one of my male coworkers did the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Dec 6, 2019 19:42:04 GMT -5
even in civil court the defendant starts from a position of innocence. I really don't think this is true, but I'm only basing this on instructions I've had as a juror. I'm not a legal scholar. We would do better to talk about ways to reduce the risks of this crime occurring than talking about someone's guilt or innocence in complete ignorance to the case facts. For instance, we as a society need to make it fundamental that going to someone's room is a social event, never professional, and as such it should be the professional norm to deny any invites for which no social interests are involved. Hotels provide plenty of options to conduct any type of professional interaction in a setting of privacy to not ever need to go to a room to conduct business. No matter who is guilty or innocent, both lost the protections they could have used, simply by making this mistake. This is getting into the details of the specific accusation. But I'll just note, I've had business discussions in people's rooms while on business trips. In fact, some business-oriented hotels are set up precisely for this, with each room being like a little suite that has a working area and a bedroom area. This can be for several reasons, but at least one of which is that sometimes you don't want to conduct business in a public space. The whole idea of positive consent is that there is NEVER an implied consent just because you entered someone's home, hotel room, car, bedroom, or whatever. And in this particular case, Tennant claimed she was hesitant to follow Walton to his room, but he assured her it was not a "social event". Your proposed rule erases the idea of requiring positive consent and essentially replaces it with one of "good girls don't go into hotel rooms with men -- and if they do, they get what's coming to them". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intend this, but it's the effect of what you are saying. You're an F'ing moron if you conclude that in my statement there is any notion of any part of what you jumped to. It is unprofessional to invite someone to your room for business, as much as it is to accept an invite to go to someone's room for business. Unprofessional %*$# happens all the time, but it doesn't make it right. It is without argument that had the meeting taken place in the open public, that no matter which version of the incident is true, it(the wrong) wouldn't have happened. This doesn't even remotely contend that whatever wrong was done, was acceptable or blamed on anyone other than the wrongdoer. PERIOD! Don't place any blame to me or project your issues onto me, for what is obviously not there. IF you think that %*$#, own it but don't place it on me to have to deal with as I will not go along with your straw man argument that attempts to make me the bad guy.
|
|
|
Post by fighton on Dec 29, 2019 20:31:26 GMT -5
We will never know the “truth” in this matter. She got her money! Case closed.
|
|