Court Documents in BJJ Rape Case

**1point2** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 6:50pm

Slamdunc's initial response and subsequent turnaround are insightful into what the martial arts' community's reaction would have been if this woman didn't have video to back up her statement. Many people reflexively refuse to believe women when they say they've been assaulted.

One part of that response is the just-world fallacy: "I refuse to believe that this world could be terrible enough that two guys pretend to help a friend home from the bar and instead rape her mercilessly."

Another part of that response is a pseudo-lawyer with Asberger's: "technically we don't know what happened, guys, so let's not jump to conclusions." I'm sure that was how these people viewed the OJ case, Casey Anthony, and so on.

And the rest is plain old deeply-ingrained misogyny: men get the benefit of the doubt; women need video to back up their story. Given that slamdunc is/was both LEO and Military, and his (her?) sig denounces both tits and *****, I expect this is the primary factor. (If you don't like the fact that slamdunc being LEO and military makes me jump to that conclusion, convince him (her?) not to jump to the defense of the rapist the next time the topic of sexual assault comes up.)

Note also that there are dipshits coming out of the woodwork already who are saying, despite the video, that it must have been consensual. Suffice it to say I think this is a misguided point of view.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 6:50pm

Maldonado will have a shot at that kind of defense because she was "with him" when they enter the frame. Also he leaves the scene before the worts of it happens, returns, and "backs away" from what's happening. Also, importantly, when asked who assaulted her she only named Schultz initially. Maldonado is still a prick, but he's got a better defense. Schultz looks like a psychopath in this, and a pathetic one to boot.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 6:54pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

Slamdunc's initial response and subsequent turnaround are insightful into what the martial arts' community's reaction would have been if this woman didn't have video to back up her statement. Many people reflexively refuse to believe women when they say they've been assaulted.

One part of that response is the just-world fallacy: "I refuse to believe that this world could be terrible enough that two guys pretend to help a friend home from the bar and instead rape her mercilessly."

Another part of that response is a pseudo-lawyer with Asberger's: "technically we don't know what happened, guys, so let's not jump to conclusions." I'm sure that was how these people viewed the OJ case, Casey Anthony, and so on.

And the rest is plain old deeply-ingrained misogyny: men get the benefit of the doubt; women need video to back up their story. Given that slamdunc is/was both LEO and Military, and his (her?) sig denounces both tits and *****, I expect this is the primary factor. (If you don't like the fact that slamdunc being LEO and military makes me jump to that conclusion, convince him (her?) not to jump to the defense of the rapist the next time the topic of sexual assault comes up.)

Note also that there are dipshits coming out of the woodwork already who are saying, despite the video, that it must have been consensual. Suffice it to say I think this is a misguided point of view.

None of that matters. It is a crime to have sex with a person who is that heavily intoxicated, and that is exactly what the two men are charged with. I don't care if she promised to let them tag team her in a garage or not; the law is very clear on this.

***battlefields*** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 7:47pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

Slamdunc's initial response and subsequent turnaround are insightful into what the martial arts' community's reaction would have been if this woman didn't have video to back up her statement. Many people reflexively refuse to believe women when they say they've been assaulted.

One part of that response is the just-world fallacy: "I refuse to believe that this world could be terrible enough that two guys pretend to help a friend home from the bar and instead rape her mercilessly."

Another part of that response is a pseudo-lawyer with Asberger's: "technically we don't know what happened, guys, so let's not jump to conclusions." I'm sure that was how these people viewed the OJ case, Casey Anthony, and so on.

And the rest is plain old deeply-ingrained misogyny: men get the benefit of the doubt; women need video to back up their story. Given that slamdunc is/was both LEO and Military, and his (her?) sig denounces both tits and *****, I expect this is the primary factor. (If you don't like the fact that slamdunc being LEO and military makes me jump to that conclusion, convince him (her?) not to jump to the defense of the rapist the next time the topic of sexual assault comes up.)

Note also that there are dipshits coming out of the woodwork already who are saying, despite the video, that it must have been consensual. Suffice it to say I think this is a misguided point of view.

Playing devil's advocate here and it is just a thought, but as a LEO, slamdunc may have seen just as many false claims of assault as he has seen actual cases of rape. So automatically calling him a misogynist might be a little harsh.

There are many factors that indicate she wasn't a willing participant even without the video. Simplistically saying that men get the benefit of the doubt and women need video is not true in the legal sense, men will be charged with rape the moment a woman claims they have been raped, they will be arrested on the woman's word, sometimes with little to no other evidence. If you are referring to public opinion, well, this is why slamdunc said there is a "presumption of innocence", although he probably should have read the facts first in order to not have said the whole "circumstantial evidence" line.

As Matt has said, once a person is intoxicated, in the eyes of the law, they can no longer consent to sexual activity. Therefore the whole, "she could have consented" thing is bullshit, she couldn't consent, not morally and certainly not legally. Personally I believe there are a number of factors which would suggest that it was definitely NOT consensual even if she "consented" while inebriated, including being left in the parking lot, hitting her head and immediately reporting it to the police afterwards. They paint a picture of a woman wronged. Once again, though, presumption of innocence.

It is actually something that I have struggled with being that I don't drink and have had girls, while inebriated, want to take me home (cause you know I am the sex). In a weird turn of events, I have told one she was too drunk (she denied this vehemently but it didn't change my mind) and another that I thought was borderline, I plied her with a lot of water and held off taking her home from the party for a few hours to be sure she was sobered up. Having faced court already due to the lies of a woman, I will not be repeating that experience if I can avoid it.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 7:55pm

Honestly, and this is just my personal feeling, rape vs no rape is irrelevant to me when you're talking about a case like this. Suppose it was consensual, and that she was not even drunk. She hit her head 6 times on concrete and the dude only worried about stuffing his dick in her mouth some more, and left her half naked, unconscious, on concrete, in DC, in JANUARY (records show it was 29F, -2C). Total disregard for Human welfare.

***battlefields*** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 8:10pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

Honestly, and this is just my personal feeling, rape vs no rape is irrelevant to me when you're talking about a case like this. Suppose it was consensual, and that she was not even drunk. She hit her head 6 times on concrete and the dude only worried about stuffing his dick in her mouth some more, and left her half naked, unconscious, on concrete, in DC, in JANUARY (records show it was 29F, -2C). Total disregard for Human welfare.

Exactly, that is what I meant. Anyone who says that there are chicks that like to be degraded and hit and is linking that to this situation is a fucking moron. Yes, they exist. But they participate willingly and SAFELY. There is nothing "safe" about the alleged attack.

**Hedgehogey** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 8:19pm

Originally Posted by battlefields

Playing devil's advocate here

Please don't.

and it is just a thought, but as a LEO, slamdunc may have seen just as many false claims of assault as he has seen actual cases of rape.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 8:29pm

Originally Posted by battlefields

Exactly, that is what I meant. Anyone who says that there are chicks that like to be degraded and hit and is linking that to this situation is a fucking moron. Yes, they exist. But they participate willingly and SAFELY. There is nothing "safe" about the alleged attack.

Shall we ask them what her safeword was? Is someone actually making that asinine argument?

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 8:38pm

Originally Posted by Hedgehogey

Please don't.

if the falsely accused are convicted thats a 20% false incarceration rate. Also, "Falsely Accused" is not a kind of "Rapist", it's a kind of victim.

***battlefields*** · Posted On: 1/13/2013 8:40pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

Shall we ask them what her safeword was? Is someone actually making that asinine argument?

Apparently:

Originally Posted by 1point2

Note also that there are dipshits coming out of the woodwork already who are saying, despite the video, that it must have been consensual. Suffice it to say I think this is a misguided point of view.

Oh look, the White Knight has ridden on his reposted meme steed.