Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!” »
Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By… » continues here »

Share

Women can stop rape! Don’t drink, don’t get raped! Simple.

A woman drinks alcohol at a party. She has sex with a man. The next day she wakes up and feels raped. Modern *rape laws agree that she was raped. She can get the man convicted for consented-to-sex-but-consent-was-invalid-due-to-alcohol rape. 1  2 3

Consensual date rape can is preventable and can be totally avoided.

women-decides-about-reproductionThis rape could have been avoided with 100% certainty. Had she not consented, she would not have been raped. Had the woman not drunk, she would not have been raped.

  1. Either she might have consented, when sober, just as she consented when drunk. Sober consent would be valid (because she was totally sober). No-one else to blame but herself for having consented to the sex act. No rape would have happened.
  2. Or she would not have consented to sex, when sober, and the sex would not have happened. Thus no rape would have happened.
    1. If she insists on drinking, she could have an analogy to the "designated driver", a sober friend that has the instructions not to let her go home with anyone, rather to deliver her home safely. This can be easily enforced, the sober friend just can drop the message, to potential suitors, that she is unable to consent and any sexual act will be prosecuted as rape, to the fullest extent of the law.
    2. Does this sound confusing? Well, modern rape does not require the women to resist. It does not even require the woman to say "no". A woman that enthusiastically consents to sex, even a woman that takes initiative to have sex against a man’s wish, can be a rape victim if she was drunk (out of her own volition to drink) or if she is under the age of consent.

"Rape" was clearly defined for 2000 years, until re-definition 50 years ago

We should revert the feminist language abuse that confuses clear terms like *consent and creates such language monsters like "invalid consent rape",

Some of the 20 types of *rape are more difficult or impossible to eradicate. Forcible rape, which involves threat of true violence. Clear, explicit, true non-*consensual rape is harder to avoid. This confounding of forcible rape with other consensual forms of rape is an offense to victims of true forcible rape

We should scrap the patronizing laws that consider women un-empowered, not responsible for their own actions. So if a woman drinks, she still would be responsible for her actions. Unless if she could prove she was in a total stupor (which still is the consequence of very irresponsible behavior).

Raped men are responsible for child support

man-decides-about-his-financesMen, even when passed out drunk and raped by a women, still have to pay child support for decades.Similarly, immature boys that are statutorily raped have to pay child support. Or men whose sperm was stolen from a condom or from a sperm bank. Or when the woman "forgot" the pill on purpose or got impregnated by someone else. The man always pays child support. 

Women are not responsible for actions under their control (drinking, consenting when drunk). Men, on the other hand, are financially liable for pregnancies that arise out of none of their own fault but out of the pure fault of the woman.


Of course, in the above analysis, we resorted to logic, which is a patriarchic tool of female oppression by men.

Re-definition of the word "rape"

Discussions about rape have been obfuscated by feminist re-definition of the word "rape". "Rape" is not what it used to be.  So in discussion about rape, people usually think of real forcible rape-rape in the old sense of the word "rape". But force, or active clear non-consent have long ceased to be requirements to prove re-defined "rape".

Feminist re-definition has made our language totally confusing and changed the meaning of words like *child, *consent, sex, porn (copine scale), child porn and *rape.


Non-consensual date rape. Non-consensual forcible rape.

Not all types of *rape are totally preventable.  We will write about non-consensual rape or non-consensual date rape in another post.

Share

Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant

The press decries systematic rape of women in African war zones while keeping quiet about the killing of even more men.

When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Women’s suffering emphasized, men’s suffering ignored. An evolutionary mechanism?

Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as "white knights" to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men is just getting ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.

Women are always the victims. In rallies, women "take back the knight" at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5 second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).

Women, engaging the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who "consent" to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.

Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.

An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

 

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape | Al Jazeera Video

The United Nations, even in security council resolutions, explicitly excludes men and boys when they talk about sexual violence against women and girls. The United Nations spokeswomen squirmed herself out of the topic, distracting but not recognizing the United Nation bias against male victims.

The above movie focuses on male rape. it still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male.  It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped, vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant” »
Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant » continues here »

Share

Trophies of feminism: 10 powerful men marred and destroyed by women’s allegations.

Unproven, or even false accusations of a single woman can destroy the world’s most powerful men and change the course of world  history. Feminism has given enormous power to any woman to derail the most powerful men in the world.

  • Al Gore, Nobel prize winner (peace) and ex-Vice-President of the USA, falsely accused of rape
  • Julian Assange, (of Wikileaks fame) accused by feminists of broken condom "rape". The entire might of the USA could not derail him, but 2 women could get him imprisoned.
  • Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF chief and French Presidential Candidate lost the leadership of the International Monetary Fund and likely the presidency of France. His arrest caused an instant decline of the Euro. Hedge funds could have made billions overnight. His successor at the IMF has a very different policy regarding the Euro bailout which potentially involves more then a Trillion (one million million) Euros. The future of the Euro, the currencies of entire nations probably were changed by the accusation of a habitual liar who already had lied about prior rapes
  • Oscar Pistorius, paralympic world record holder in 100, 200 and 400-metre events: "South Africa’s legless Blade Runner has been charged with assault after a woman claimed he bruised her leg at a party. Double amputee Oscar Pistorius spent Saturday night in jail after being accused of assaulting the 19-year-old woman". The charges were soon dropped..
  • Franco Porzio, Olympic champion in Water Polo, was accused by his second wife. His first wife came to his defense.
  • Jörg Kachelmann, Germany’s prominent famous TV weatherman spent months in jail upon the mere unproven accusation of an ex-girlfriend. He remained in jail even after she had been caught with various lies.
  • Theo Theophanous,an Australian Labor minister, lost his high government job, his reputation and much of his savings. His accuser had waited for 10 years and was shown to be notoriously unreliable. But the character assassination had already taken its toll.
  • Moshe Katsav, ex president of Israel, got a 7 plus 2 year prison sentence, because "The judges said they found the rape victim’s testimony “completely credible” and Mr. Katsav’s “false.” [NYT] Time [H]. As usual, accusations were not leveled immediately after the alleged crime, when it was still possible to find proof.
    • We can not affirm that Katzav is innocent. But like Strauss-Kahn, it looks that he is a powerful womanizer but not necessarily a rapist
    • If he really forcibly raped the woman, he deserves the jail time. Even more so because then he was incredibly stupid.
      • a) Rich powerful men have so many options to get sex with admirers (groupies) or affordable prostitutes.
      • b) And if he was really guilty , why would he be so incredibly stupid to renege on a plea bargain that would have saved him prison time?
  • Mel Gibson,Hollywood actor,  accused by his girl friend and defended by his ex-wife
  • Brazilian President with panty-less woman 1994Bill Clinton, US  president.  whose presidency was marred by the Paula Jones harassment accusations.
    • So what if he really made some indecent proposal to Paula Jones?  Weakness as a weapon: The Sexual Harassment Industry makes a point that maybe women should be empowered to withstand innuendo, cat calls, objectifying gaze.
    • The Paula Jones case led to the inquiries into Clinton’s private sex live, which led to the Lewinsky scandal. It was unfortunate that he lied, but most men and women lie about love affairs, and it should not have been anyone’s business who he has sex (or blow jobs) with
    • Monica Lewinsky rarely gets credited for having stood by her man and tried her best to protect Bill Clinton.
    • Sexually more liberated Brazilians could not understand why Clinton suffered so much harassment.
    • Brazilians also could not understand why the most powerful man on earth could not score a more attractive girl friend then Monica Lewinsky.
    • Long gone were the times, where the most powerful man on earth (John F. Kennedy) could have a secret tryst  with the most desired woman on earth (Marilyn Monroe) 1 2 3 ABC
    • In Brazil there was a minor scandal when the country’s president was photographed with a carnival princess and Playboy Cover who had no panties on. "An adorable girl," the President dreamily mused to reporters a couple of days later.  … Later "the Globo television network broadcast a recording of the President cooing, "I am in love with you," to Miss Ramos over the telephone"itamar_lilia_calcinha
  • Christian von Boetticher, 40, designated leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Union in Schleswig-Holstein,  who was set to lead Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party in its fight to retain power the north German state next May, has resigned after intense internal party pressure over his consensual and perfectly legal love affair with a 16-year-old girl. The girl did not even accuse him.
  • The 20 Most Scandalous Sexual-Harassment Cases of All Time

 

Parts of this article were translated from the Italian I trofei di caccia del femminismo: le teste dei maschi infangati o distrutti da accuse di Donne.

Share

If mugging laws were like rape laws

Woman: I would like to report a mugging. Last year was drunk running around the street. I met a man who told me a sob story about her owing $1000 rent. He was very convincing. I felt so loving and caring that I just went with him to the ATM and gave him $1000. Now that I am sober, and after ruminating for a few months, I am sorry I gave the money and want to report this robbery. He deserves jail.

  • In a normal non-rape context, the receiving person might be asked to return the money. But never would he be jailed for robbery for accepting money from a lightly drunk stranger. Much less if she complained 6 months after the fact.

    This post is not meant to ridicule true victims of forcible rape. It is meant as a reminder that, unlike in muggers, those accused of rape are not guaranteed constitutional rights of due process.

    Alleged rapists are jailed based on unproven alccusations. Like Strauss-Kahn. This leads to suffering for the falsely accused. It also leads to waste of police time, and decreases the credibility of true victims of rape. It also encourages false accusations, see http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

Officer: You are very brave for coming forward. If you were drunk and driving, you would be arrested, but since you were just drunk and stupid, you’re a poor helpless victim. What monster could have done this to you?

Woman: His name is Joe Smith.

Officer: Well, we will go to his place of employment and very loudly announce that he is under arrest for such a terrible crime. He will probably lose his job just due to the accusation. If he is well known, even though he has not yet been tried, we will plaster his face over all newspapers and news channels. Luckily our society is one which no longer believes that “innocent until proven guilty” hogwash, we now have a “let’s hang him just to be safe” approach to crime. He will probably receive death threats, abuse from strangers in public, and may even be forced to move over this allegation.

Woman: Wow, that is great for revenge. What about the trial?

Officer: Even though we have no evidence other than your accusation, we will charge him, as no further evidence is needed thanks to new laws. If he takes it to trial, he will probably spend 15 years in prison, and will be the brunt of abuse of other inmates. Most likely however, the 15 year sentence will scare him enough that he will plead out. He will be in prison for 4-10 years, then when he get out and be on a public registry. If he has children he may never see them again. He will forever be ridiculed by the public and in a sense be a pariah.

Woman: And if after he has spent 7 years in prison, you find out I lied?

Officer: The DA will probably not even file charges, unless there is clear proof you knowingly and maliciously falsely accused the person. This is almost impossible, because you filed charges 6 months after the crime.  If there is absolutely convincing proof, or your confession, you will have to pay a $150 fine. If you have bad luck, we will sentence you to a year probation. We will try to keep it quiet, otherwise other mugging victims may not come forward. He may or may not be released. It helps us if he’s not because now our D.A. and police department can run around and show everyone that we’re doing a great job getting another violent, misanthropic criminal off of the street. It’s win win for everyone, and if he complains about how his life is ruined, he should just man up and get over it.

Woman: Oh no! But what happens if I want to report another mugging after you find out I have been lying?

Officer: Thanks to mugging shield laws, it can never be brought up at trial, you can put as many men in prison as you like.

786279aWoman: Well, if that’s the case, then I want to report another mugging. Bob Johnson, the cab driver, had mugged me a few nights ago. I know that he had me arrested because I had taken the ride and didn’t have any money to pay him, but it was really because he mugged me.

Officer: We will drop all charges against you and arrest Bob Johnson immediately.

Woman: A year ago I reported a (real) robbery. I had been walking around in a bad neighborhood, flashing my money around and someone threatened me with a knife and took my money. Police officer Miller took my report and actually brought the case to trial. But Miller also also told me that it is unwise to walk around drunk flashing cash at night in a bad neighborhood. That is victim blaming.  What sort of world is this where a woman can’t even run around drunk flashing all of his cash and become a victim of unwanted attention?

Woman: I would like to report a mugging. Last year was drunk running around the street. I met a man who told me a sob story about her owing $1000 rent. He was very convincing. I felt so loving and caring that I just went with her to the ATM and gave her $1000. Now that I am sober, and after ruminating for a few months, I am sorry I gave the money and want to report this robbery. He deserves jail.

  • In  a normal non-rape context, the receiving person might be asked to return the money. But never would he be jailed for robbery for accepting money from a lightly drunk stranger. Much less if she complained 6 months after the fact.

Officer: You are very brave for coming forward. If you were drunk and driving, you would be arrested, but since you were just drunk and stupid, you’re a poor helpless victim. What monster could have done this to you?

Woman: His name is Joe Smith.

Officer: Well, we will go to his place of employment and very loudly announce that he is under arrest for such a terrible crime. He will probably lose his job just due to the accusation. If he is well known, even though he has not yet been tried, we will plaster his face over all newspapers and news channels. Luckily our society is one which no longer believes that "innocent until proven guilty" hogwash, we now have a "let’s hang him just to be safe" approach to crime. He will probably receive death threats, abuse from strangers in public, and may even be forced to move over this allegation.

Woman: Wow, that is great for revenge. What about the trial?

Officer: Even though we have no evidence other than your accusation, we will charge him, as no further evidence is needed thanks to new laws. If he takes it to trial, he will probably spend 15 years in prison, and will be the brunt of abuse of other inmates. Most likely however, the 15 year sentence will scare him enough that he will plead out. He will be in prison for 4-10 years, then when he get out and be on a public registry. If he has children he may never see them again. He will forever be ridiculed by the public and in a sense be a pariah.

Woman: And if after he has spent 7 years in prison, you find out I lied?

Officer: The DA will probably not even file charges, unless there is clear proof you knowingly and maliciously falsely accused the person. This is almost impossible, because you filed charges 6 months after the crime.  If there is absolutely convincing proof, or your confession, you will have to pay a $150 fine. If you have bad luck, we will sentence you to a year probation. We will try to keep it quiet, otherwise other mugging victims may not come forward. He may or may not be released. It helps us if he’s not because now our D.A. and police department can run around and show everyone that we’re doing a great job getting another violent, misanthropic criminal off of the street. It’s win win for everyone, and if he complains about how his life is ruined, he should just man up and get over it.

Woman: Oh no! But what happens if I want to report another mugging after you find out I have been lying?

Officer: Thanks to mugging shield laws, it can never be brought up at trial, you can put as many men in prison as you like.

786279aWoman: Well, if that’s the case, then I want to report another mugging. Bob Johnson, the cab driver, had mugged me a few nights ago. I know that he had me arrested because I had taken the ride and didn’t have any money to pay him, but it was really because he mugged me.

Officer: We will drop all charges against you and arrest Bob Johnson immediately.

Woman: A year ago I reported a (real) robbery. I had been walking around in a bad neighborhood, flashing my money around and someone threatened me with a knife and took my money. Police officer Miller took my report and actually brought the case to trial. But Miller also also told me that it is unwise to walk around drunk flashing cash at night in a bad neighborhood. That is victim blaming.  What sort of world is this where a woman can’t even run around drunk flashing all of his cash and become a victim of unwanted attention?

Woman: I would like to report a mugging. Last year was drunk running around the street. I met a man who told me a sob story about her owing $1000 rent. He was very convincing. I felt so loving and caring that I just went with her to the ATM and gave her $1000. Now that I am sober, and after ruminating for a few months, I am sorry I gave the money and want to report this robbery. He deserves jail.

  • In  a normal non-rape context, the receiving person might be asked to return the money. But never would he be jailed for robbery for accepting money from a lightly drunk stranger. Much less if she complained 6 months after the fact.

Officer: You are very brave for coming forward. If you were drunk and driving, you would be arrested, but since you were just drunk and stupid, you’re a poor helpless victim. What monster could have done this to you?

Woman: His name is Joe Smith.

Officer: Well, we will go to his place of employment and very loudly announce that he is under arrest for such a terrible crime. He will probably lose his job just due to the accusation. If he is well known, even though he has not yet been tried, we will plaster his face over all newspapers and news channels. Luckily our society is one which no longer believes that "innocent until proven guilty" hogwash, we now have a "let’s hang him just to be safe" approach to crime. He will probably receive death threats, abuse from strangers in public, and may even be forced to move over this allegation.

Woman: Wow, that is great for revenge. What about the trial?

Officer: Even though we have no evidence other than your accusation, we will charge him, as no further evidence is needed thanks to new laws. If he takes it to trial, he will probably spend 15 years in prison, and will be the brunt of abuse of other inmates. Most likely however, the 15 year sentence will scare him enough that he will plead out. He will be in prison for 4-10 years, then when he get out and be on a public registry. If he has children he may never see them again. He will forever be ridiculed by the public and in a sense be a pariah.

Woman: And if after he has spent 7 years in prison, you find out I lied?

Officer: The DA will probably not even file charges, unless there is clear proof you knowingly and maliciously falsely accused the person. This is almost impossible, because you filed charges 6 months after the crime.  If there is absolutely convincing proof, or your confession, you will have to pay a $150 fine. If you have bad luck, we will sentence you to a year probation. We will try to keep it quiet, otherwise other mugging victims may not come forward. He may or may not be released. It helps us if he’s not because now our D.A. and police department can run around and show everyone that we’re doing a great job getting another violent, misanthropic criminal off of the street. It’s win win for everyone, and if he complains about how his life is ruined, he should just man up and get over it.

Woman: Oh no! But what happens if I want to report another mugging after you find out I have been lying?

Officer: Thanks to mugging shield laws, it can never be brought up at trial, you can put as many men in prison as you like.

786279aWoman: Well, if that’s the case, then I want to report another mugging. Bob Johnson, the cab driver, had mugged me a few nights ago. I know that he had me arrested because I had taken the ride and didn’t have any money to pay him, but it was really because he mugged me.

Officer: We will drop all charges against you and arrest Bob Johnson immediately.

Woman: A year ago I reported a (real) robbery. I had been walking around in a bad neighborhood, flashing my money around and someone threatened me with a knife and took my money. Police officer Miller took my report and actually brought the case to trial. But Miller also also told me that it is unwise to walk around drunk flashing cash at night in a bad neighborhood. That is victim blaming.  What sort of world is this where a woman can’t even run around drunk flashing all of his cash and become a victim of unwanted attention?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “If mugging laws were like rape laws” »
If mugging laws were like rape laws » continues here »

Share

One in two rape accusations are false! Strauss-Kahn, presumed guilty, jailed, slandered without due process, escaped. Others are not so lucky!

One in two rape accusations (over 50%) are false: Dominique Strauss-Kahn escaped the inquisition. Others are not so lucky. They get convicted, falsely. We wish we could say Dominique Strauss-Kahn escaped unscathed. But he suffered tremendously. He lost his job. Speculator could have made Billions, because the value of the Euro dropped due to his arrest, and other unexpected stock market irregularities occurred. 

Let us remember the thousands of men that are less lucky then Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

For every Strauss-Kahn, there are dozens of men that don’t escape unjust persecution

After: strauss-kahn-innocentOne in two rape accusations are false. Like Strauss-Kahn, thousands of men are presumed guilty, jailed and smeared without due process. They can not afford to spend millions of dollars for bail, a dream team of lawyers, detectives, and their own guards for domestic prison as Dominique Strauss-Kahn did. We only hear of the few lucky ones that escape. The Jörg Kachelmann rape case in Germany similarly ruined a successful public man’s career, had a man spend months in jail, because of unproven uncorroborated accusations by a woman, who also was caught red-handed lying about important facts.

"Of course, if she is a liar, that still does not mean she was raped. " Yes, but in that case, she’d better bring a long a tape recording proving the act of rape against her clear resistance. In our legal system, where men accused of sexual offenses are presumed guilty until proven innocent, they have to provide proof of their innocence. In the famous Hofstra false rape case the male victims of false rape accusations were only freed after providing video recording that showed that the sex act was totally consensual and very different then described in the false accusations.

For every acquitted man, there are dozens of unjustly imprisoned victims of false rape accusations.

Before: Guilty until proven innocentNow consider this, how many men take video recordings of their sex acts so that they can later prove the consensual nature of their sex acts? Can you imagine: for every man that can prove his innocence, how many men stay in jail and go to prison, upon unproven, wrong allegations of sexual misconduct? Remember: One in two rape accusations are false.

No wonder, that with such medieval legal practice

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “One in two rape accusations are false! Strauss-Kahn, presumed guilty, jailed, slandered without due process, escaped. Others are not so lucky!” »
One in two rape accusations are false! Strauss-Kahn, presumed guil… » continues here »

Share

4 out of 5 sexual abuse accusations are false (Austrian head of vice police)

4 out of 5 sexual abuse accusations are false, reports the chief of the vice department of North Austria. This region had become infamous for sex maniac child imprisoner Fritzl who had  imprisoned and raped his own daughter for 24 years The following report is translated from a major authoritative (Google page rank 7) regional newspaper NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHE NACHRICHTEN (Lower Austrian News).

True or fake [accusations]?

Sexual abuse / The vice department has set the goal, to bring each sexual abuser behind bars. But not all accusations turn out to be real abuse.

nordoesterreich_imagemap"We carefully pursue every single accusation, so absolutely no case will get left out", stresses Leo Lehrbaum, chief of the group "vice" of the state criminal police in lower Austria.

Every day he is confronted with varying tragical forms of sexual abuse and knows, how much the victims  suffer from the consequences, even decades later. Many only dare to file complaints to the executive branch years after it happened. "We try, of course, to clear up everything, but many cases already prescribed, so that the perpetrator can no more be charged in court" Lehrbaum knows.

This is why he advises: "Always file a complaint immediately. The less time has passed, the better the chances to catch the perpetrator, due to traces of DNA.". Women and children should not be afraid, because everyone has the right to be interviewed by a female police officer.

Nevertheless, independent of all real abuse cases, he has noted a disconcerting development, during his investigations.
"On average, four out of five complaints to police turn out to be pure invention".

Psychological problems or fear of pregnancy

The youngest one that faked such a crime, was only 12 years old. During puberty and adolescence such fabrications are especially frequent. Motives vary. Lehrbaum: "In some cases there are profound psychological problems, that need to be analyzed by an expert".  Often it is simply a "cry" to call attention, because there are problems in school, with parents or at work. Here he appeals to the parents, to take more time to talk with their children and not to abandon them, saying "I have no time right now, let’s talk tomorrow".

He is even more concerned about cases where young women pretend to have been raped, to get even with an acquaintance, because they were rejected or because a relationship did not proceed the way she wished it would.

"Often such accusations are a white lies, because after a party or disco visit – and usually under heavy influence of alcohol – unplanned and unprotected intercourse has occurred,  and now they are concerned about a possible pregnancy or other personal consequences", said the detective officer.

He is particular saddened when in divorce or custody disputes, the fake abuse accusation is used as a means to an end. "In the course of the inquiry, if we speak in detail about the incident, it turns out very soon that the accuser gets entangled in contradictory statements, and they admit that the whole has yet taken place or not in this form . They often come to their senses and realize that the entire story was very improper, "says Lehrbaum.

The accusers frequently are unaware, that their "fantasy" is a serious crime.  "A complaint against an unknown perpetrator is a simulation of a crime, punishable with up to 6 months in jail, and a complaint against a particular person is libel,  punishable with up to 5 years in jail", admonishes Lehrbaum to be more responsible with both accusations and sexuality.

Share

"Reclaim the night" money-slut walk in gang area @2am. We don’t deserve to be told to leave our cash and Rolex at home to avoid being victimized.

We will get drunk first and then walk with cash, Rolexes, gold jewelry in the inner city gang area.

This money-slut walk is in response to a police recommendation, not to carry large amounts of cash. We object to such victim blaming. The money is ours. We can carry it wherever we want. No matter if we are drunk or not.

These money-slut walkers are simple fighting for their right show off their money

These ‘slut walk’ women are simply fighting for their right to be dirty

Its my hot money, I do what I want

moneyMen and women march through East Los Angeles high crime neighborhood during the money-slut walk, which organizers described as a demonstration against those who blame the victims of robberies.woman-moneybagMexican Street Gang

slutwalk_1891529c
Women march through downtown Boston during the ‘SlutWalk’ in Boston, which organizers described as a demonstration against those who blame the victims of sex crimes
True liberation is men or women carrying the cash they want and abandon credit cards and modesty

True liberation is women wearing what they like and abandoning the Hoover.

For the right to carry money bags anywhere, anytime, any alcohol level

street_gangs_la 220107mexicans4gangs2-744750

 

The Toronto policeman who in January told a "personal security class" at York University that "people should avoid showing off their money and carrying large amounts of cash in order not to be victimized" said nothing unusual. What made news was what happened 10 weeks later, when a thousand people hit the streets of East Los Angeles in a "money slut walk".

The Toronto policeman who in January told a "personal security class" at York University that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized" said nothing unusual. What made news was what happened 10 weeks later, when a thousand people hit the streets of downtown Toronto in a "slut walk".   Telegraph.uk

Nor do I deserve to be told to leave my Rolex and my money at home to avoid being victimized! (Nobody tells me what do do!) Nor do I deserve to be told that I should cover up to avoid being victimized Nobody tells me what to do

Judgybitch has some good avice: Don’t want to get robbed on holidays? Don’t dress as a tourist and some other advice (if you don’t want to get raped.)

Share