WNBA Investigates latest race-hoax, going after the few fans it has with no evidence

[Wazmankg]

So you want women to be able to say which men Should go to prison based on no evidence

I want juries to determine whether someone is guilty of a r*pe they've been accused of.

 

[Wazmankg]

Filing a police report isn’t.. which is why women should do so immediately after the crime.

What are you arguing for then? Filing a false police report is already illegal. So if a woman falsely accuses a man of r*pe there is already a legal avenue to prosecute her for that.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

This scenario aside, Reese is not a good basketball player. Like, she is objectively not good. And people are trying to shoehorn her into something she isnt. The focus should be on Wilson or Bueckers or the last vestiges of Griner (who is also insufferable) rather than propping up a limited talent.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I want juries to determine whether someone is guilty of r*pe.

Should juries vote guilty based on claims alone?

 

[Wazmankg]

Should juries vote guilty based on claims alone?

Juries vote based upon who they believe is telling the truth every single day.

 

[tlance]

Should juries vote guilty based on claims alone?

LOL.

Literally nobody is advocating for that.

So stop making it seem like people are.

Getting to the point where you are being intentionally dishonest.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What are you arguing for then? Filing a false police report is already illegal. So if a woman falsely accuses a man of r*pe there is already a legal avenue to prosecute her for that.

A false report isn’t the same as a claim that doesn’t result in a conviction.

Women should need evidence to claim r*pe, just as any crime requires evidence. For some reason people on here don’t seem to desire the requirement of evidence to accuse and possibly imprison a guy who could be entirely innocent.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

LOL.

Literally nobody is advocating for that.

So stop making it seem like people are.

Getting to the point where you are being intentionally dishonest.

If there’s no other evidence besides her side of the story, should the guy ever be imprisoned?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Juries vote based upon who they believe is telling the truth every single day.

Indeed, and they get it wrong sometimes.

I’m asking you what ought to be.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

If there’s no other evidence besides her side of the story, should the guy ever be imprisoned?

You're on your own on this one lol

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You're on your own on this one lol

I don’t need your support.

But you’re saying if a woman claims she was raped 6 months ago, and there’s no other evidence, and the man denies it.. you’d have no problem if he went to prison?

 

[Wazmankg]

Indeed, and they get it wrong sometimes.

I’m asking you what ought to be.

and I told you. Juries should decide. That's the way it "ought to be" because r*pe is nearly always he said/she said.

 

[tlance]

If there’s no other evidence besides her side of the story, should the guy ever be imprisoned?

Probably not. But always depends on the details and the situation. Not for me to decide.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I don’t need your support.

But you’re saying if a woman claims she was raped 6 months ago, and there’s no other evidence, and the man denies it.. you’d have no problem if he went to prison?

Do you have examples of this happening often?

There is a reason this crime is so underreported and charged.

The higher your profile the more likely you could catch a bad case I guess, but I can't think of a single famous person who went to jail for sexual assault and there wasn't evidence to prove it to a jury.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Probably not. But always depends on the details and the situation. Not for me to decide.

Just hope it never happens to you then. I think evidence should be required for everyone.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

and I told you. Juries should decide. That's the way it "ought to be" because r*pe is nearly always he said/she said.

So if a jury found you guilty of murder after you were accused with a rock solid alibi.. you’d just accept it because the jury said so?

 

[Wazmankg]

So if a jury found you guilty of murder after you were accused with a rock solid alibi.. you’d just accept it because the jury said so?

I wouldn't have much choice now would I? But I'd try to appeal.

What exactly is your alternative to our current system of justice, because it seems there are some very fundamental aspects of it that you have a problem with?

 

[tlance]

So if a jury found you guilty of murder after you were accused with a rock solid alibi.. you’d just accept it because the jury said so?

Nobody thinks people should be convicted without evidence. You keep moving the goal posts.

You think accusers should be charged with a crime if there accusation can’t be proved.

Those are very different things. There is no comparison

 

[rmilia1]

A persons word is never enough to deprive someone of their freedom

If you have no evidence in ANY criminal trial other than a sole individuals word/recollection/ testimony then there should never be a guilty verdict

That doesn't apply solely to r*pe either

If Joe Blow is on trial for murder and the only evidence is Betty Sue who says she saw him do it out her kitchen window then Joe should be a free man


There's ALWAYS reasonable doubt whenever 1 person says something with no supporting evidence

This is why its important for women to go directly to the hospital after being raped. So evidence can be collected. Not doing so, for whatever reason, is you basically stating you don't want the perpetrator to be charged/ convicted

Id rather 5 criminals be walking free than see 1 innocent person in prison. Our legal standards are high for a reason and FARRRRRR too many people don't understand what reasonable doubt is