AJ Johnson/Michael Williams Case (merged)

#704
#704
Coug said:
This post is full of irony.
Click to expand...

Or it's a realization that everything needs to stop, because it helps nothing. All these posts do is rehash tired and somewhat faulty statistics about how many people are raped and how many people lie. We are solving nothing and arguing about how often people do bad things and in what capacity.
 
#709
#709
brian241 said:
Those statistics have been debunked numerous times. It's feminist propaganda. The 2% number is nothing more than an anecdote presented by a female police detective during a speech back in the 70's or 80's to a feminist convention she was paid to speak at-every other citation of this statistic is a woozle. The notion that you can accurately measure the number of 'unreported rapes' is laughably absurd.

The fact is that almost all of the 'statistics' surrounding this issue that you see are fabricated by the very nuts who depend on inflated numbers of victims for the funding of their jobs. You know the '1 in 5' college girls will be raped number (which has been debunked so many dozens of times yet still gets repeated daily by people who should know better) was derived by a ridiculously small sample size. Almost all of the individuals who the study determined to have been 'raped' actually stated specifically that they never had been raped, but by answering affirmatively to the question of whether they engaged in sex after having consumed alcohol, or if their consent was obtained after being badgered (not forced-but simply a guy asking for it over and over until she said yes) the 'study' counted them as being raped.

As for a study conducted by someone who doesn't have a bias or conflict of interest that would tend to discredit them into false rape allegations, here is one:

false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases.

That study is not perfect, but it is much better than a bunch of fabricated bs public relations spin by the rape culture vulture profiteers masquerading as actual researchers. Yes false rape claims do happen. They are not anywhere near the low figure of 2%. On college campuses they are undoubtedly much higher now than they were several years ago because of the federally mandated hysteria has allowed extremists to indoctrinate almost all college students with all sorts of false notions such as a drunk (but not incapacitated) female cannot consent to sex. Add to that now due to the TITLE IX based federal mandates that colleges are forced to (and girls are being coached on this at orientation) offer mandatory academic accommodations such as extensions on papers, exams, the ability to withdraw without penalty when other students cannot due to a deadline, change dorms, etc. simply for claiming to have been sexually assaulted. As soon as these new guidelines were imposed back in 2011, a large number of the women within the federal office that was responsible for imposing those regulations on all colleges getting federal $ (which is all but a handful of traditional colleges outside of the for profit sector) went on to take high six figure jobs at universities administering these new guidelines-they used to call it racketeering, I now call it rapeteering.

Point is, the studies in the source you linked to are self serving fabricated bs. Does any of this mean AJ did or did not rape that girl? No. But it does mean that any sort of connotation that he is likely guilty because false allegations are incredibly rare is absolute bovine excrement.
Click to expand...

Gosh, that almost sounds like the race hustlers. Finally someone who understands how this stuff works. A quick look at some of the other studies that were also in that link you provided were commissioned by "Violence against Women". Even their own studies showed that the 2% figure is laughably low and so they conclude that it is BETWEEN 2-10%
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#713
#713
Col_Cathcart said:
She shouldn't have any legal expenses. The DA isn't payed by victims. His or her salary is paid for with tax money.
Click to expand...

His comment isn't regarding legal assistance, but rather assistance with other things that she needs to get back to a regular life. If I recall correctly, rape kits are quite pricey. Also paying for counseling and anything else that was a cost she wouldn't have incurred if she wasn't raped.
 
#714
#714
chattavol420 said:
Idk about this. I feel as though we need to let the process play out. If it is determined that he did in fact forcefully take advantage of this girl...would you feel comfortable financially supporting a rapist?
Click to expand...

The police report said no force, no weapons involved, no visible injuries to the accuser. It happened in an apartment full of people. No screams for help, no defensive wounds. The accuser left of her own accord and did not say she had been attacked. This is all part of the public record, confirmed by police. It's difficult to declare any party guilty or innocent based on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#715
#715
VolFaninV said:
I haven't judged anything. How do you know this is unsubstantiated? Why do you assume the DA is anything like Nifong?

A college girl says she was raped. The indictment wouldn't happen if he wasn't involved somehow in the situation. This isn't 1950s Mississippi. If he is not guilty he will be found not guilty and will be able to pursue the NFL.
Click to expand...


U can indict a ham sandwich.
 
#719
#719
I am wishing they would move all this stuff to the political forum. I want to talk and hear about football for a change...NOT RAPE or Lack of?:How depressing!!! hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#721
#721
overseasorange2 said:
I am wishing they would move all this stuff to the political forum. I want to talk and hear about football for a change...NOT RAPE or Lack of?:How depressing!!! hi:
Click to expand...

We're hashing that out right now. We're definitely not going to let the whole forum turn into a legal discussion.
 
#722
#722
Col_Cathcart said:
She shouldn't have any legal expenses. The DA isn't payed by victims. His or her salary is paid for with tax money.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far...
When I was in college playing football my best friend and teammate was accused of rape. He was kicked out of school immediately. She eventually admitted she had lied. She had sex with two different guys that night and got caught and made it up for cover. My friend was allowed to come back to school. Damage to his reputation was done already. Some teachers protested his return and others told him to not even think about signing up for one of their classes.

I wish that there were consequences when people cry wolf just like there are when these terrible things happen. Justice all around is needed / desired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#723
#723
northknoxvol said:
Does everyone get a refund if these guys are found guilty?
Click to expand...

To say this was a poorly conceived idea is an understatement.

The amount of time this thought had to spend floating in his head ( at least the time needed to make the page) should have been enough for him to realize that.
 
#724
#724
gunner said:
I read your comments that painted the GJ process in a very disparaging light, by concluding that a ham sandwich can be indicted. I have been through the process many times as a witness, and I have been asked numerous questions by jurors about the case. Needless, to say I have a lot of respect for the process.

I work in the federal system and let me tell you it's NOT easy to get a case to indictment. In my district as is the case in many, it must be approved all the way up to the US Attorney himself where the entire case is reviewed by him before an indictment is scheduled. They want the cases so airtight that even a law student could prosecute it, no offense to law students.

So to say a ham sandwich could be indicted to me is very offensive when I know how much work must be done just to get it to a GJ.

Good luck with your endeavors and your career. I have found mine to be very rewarding and frustrating at times too. But, I still love the job!
Click to expand...

Thank you for your well wishes.

There is no need to be offended. My comments regarding the ease of which a grand jury indicts has nothing to do with the investigatory process of law enforcement. If you separate the two from each other, it is perfectly reasonable to say that grand juries are rubber stamps that would indict a ham sandwich without compromising any work that the law enforcement officer has done to get the evidence. Getting good evidence, then, doesn't change the fact that GJ proceedings could indict a ham sandwich.

If you view the intent of the GJ proceeding as being one of several procedural safe guards to protect the citizens from government overreach, as I do, you might see that it is laughably ineffectual. How can a safeguard be effective when the standard to pass through is so low that it can be stepped over by a toddler, or when the very entity that the GJ system is designed to act as a limit upon (the government), is the only entity that gets a say in what gets presented and how it gets presented?

In other words, if the GJ is supposedly a limit on government dishonesty or malicious prosecution, there is no mechanism to actually cull the good cases from the bad. It is a rubber stamp, a box check, with very few exceptions.

If you are a good cop in TN and you have the best evidence in the world, it would be almost indistinguishable to a grand jury from a bad cop who violated the rights of the defendant and who planted evidence. I'm not suggesting that the majority of cops are bad, I don't think our forefathers would have thought that either. But I, like they, know how dangerous a tiny minority who go rogue can be to the vast majority when the government is given almost limitless power and resources. That is why the GJ was a brilliant idea but is now almost reduced to a colon that passes everything through one end and out the other without even slowing it down much.

Finally it should be noted that there are differences between grand juries in each state and between the federal government and the states. Trying to compare one to the others beyond broad generalities can be misleading to the casual observer.
 
#725
#725
The weird thing to me here with everyone who repeats over and over again that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich (and yet has never posted any evidence of any such thing) is that clearly the NFL doesn't share their viewpoint. If the NFL knew for certain that Johnson would be indicted, why invite him to the combine while his case is with the grand jury? Why wait and pull his invite afterward? Do they not understand, like all the unbiased experts on VN, that grand jury results are predetermined and all indictments meaningless?
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top