Not at all.
Kobe Bryant - What’s his legacy?
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I think that's arguable although controversial. The issue here is (assuming he's guilty) that he was never punished for it in the first place, rather the victim was effectively raped again in a deep emotional way as he buried the case with power from his wealth and fame.
Agree with the later part. As I’ve said before, he’s ruined her life twice and didn’t suffer the consequences once.
This thread.
"Raped again in a deep emotional way"
ffs. If nothing else extremely disrespectful of rape victims.
"Raped again in a deep emotional way"
ffs. If nothing else extremely disrespectful of rape victims.
I wouldn't exactly call making $2.5m and being financially set for life being "raped again". If it was that important to where she wanted to pursue the matter in a criminal trial, she could've done so. But she didn't, instead preferring a large payment of cash money.
Again, it explains why some people do feel this way about him. Like, if you really absolutely believe he violently raped her, victimized her in the judicial process, and then emotionally raped her again through his success, fair enough if you loathe him and can't stand the tributes and the adulation poured on him.
It also explains why that view... Isn't really prominent.
Maybe the money is secondary to being free from the press and his rabid fans who sent her death threats, just a thought.
That's a possibility. Another possibility is that she may not have wanted parts of her own past aired in a public trial, which would've caused her even more discomfort.
Rape is an emotional trauma and like all emotional traumas they are not fixed by cash payments. Having your name dragged through the mud and being victimised by fans only makes a deeply distressing life changing situation even more traumatic. Again, you can't buy that off with cash.
100%
I find that sort of thing, and also those trying to make it racial, all deeply disrespectful all around.
Personally I don't know anything about his career or personality. I know nothing about basketball and didn't even know which team he played for before he died. I don't like or dislike him. It's more interesting to me as the whole general worship of celebrity dynamic.
I think the question if a rapist can ever be redeemed and forgiven is an interesting one too. The wrinkle here (if you believe he did it) is that he's never been punished for it regardless.
Last edited:
And people wonder why the level rape cases that are prosecuted is so low. Jesus wept.
What's that then, like a "she had sex before so deserved to be raped' type of defense?
The law is pretty clear. She says no, you take your dick out of her.
Off the top of my head - she was taking schizophrenia pills at the time, had suicidal issues and had sex less than 24 hours after (or before, not sure) the incident.
Not saying the case wasn't bought off, but all of the above would be heavily focused on by the defense if the case had gone to trial.
It isn't what he said - and unless you are hard of reading and comprehending what you are reading, your little "I understand why she thinks I raped her" statement is dangerous. If you wanted to debate this topic with people, you could have quoted exactly what he actually said. Instead, you needed to put your little spin on it for whatever reason. Maybe you were just wumming to see what kind of reaction you could get. Maybe you wanted to be a little provocative. Whatever the reason, you putting what you did in quotes is disingenuous and dangerous.
Kobe’s lawyer Pam McKee already laid out the case in 04, which included the accuser allegedly having attempted suicide before the incident and being on anti-schizophrenia / anti-psychotic drugs. All of that would’ve been fair game in a public criminal trial. Her being promiscuous and having mistakenly brought in the wrong under wear to the forensic examination with yet another guy’s semen on it, would’ve probably also been brought into play by McKee as a device to illustrate behavior and frame of mind, which in a criminal trial requiring guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would’ve probably been very effective. Therefore why go through all of that when you can instead get a large sum of money by agreeing to settle out of court.
Last edited:
Seems odd to use someone's mental illness to try and excuse rape, but defense lawyers are typically scumbags.
Ultimately it’s all about winning the case. The system requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so obviously most lawyers will aggressively pursue establishing reasonable doubt.
And anything less would be negligent and lead to even more people getting locked up because of questionable evidence. It's not a character flaw to fight your corner. They weren't excusing anything, they were laying out why the key witness was unreliable.
And the ultimate proof was her not saying anything in court. Can hardly be a less reliable witness than one not willing to repeat a statement.
True, it's a character flaw to keep fecking someone after they say "no, stop", though.
a girl can sleep with a different guy every day of the year, it shouldn't have any bearing on a rape case. i get that a defence attorney would go down that path, but it's utterly irrelevent - or at least should be.
so too whether she's taking prescription drugs or not.
so too whether she's taking prescription drugs or not.
...what are you insinuating here?
That my insistence that he was innocent is somehow a defense of the crime that I think him innocent of?
I disagree, but I can see why the majority of people would think this.
Not sure how you get that.
Well what is it then?
No, they are. They are doing their job but it tends to ignore what most people would consider any sort of moral value system for money.
I'm gonna make some popcorn and see how long it takes you to figure out what I meant.
You quoted me and than stated that rape is a character flaw after I had said to defend yourself while being accused is not one.
If your statement simply boils down to rape=bad alright, no one will disagree with that.
Also, 2.3 Million locked away in the US alone but it's the defense laywers who're the scumbags. What a world.
Well I'm on the opposite side - they usually stand up for people who don't have anyone left for them anymore, ensure everyone's right to defense even when they're often already condemned by society and the media, and make sure that the police and prosecution don't get a free pass which also happens quite often.
I won't pretend that the system in the USA is anywhere close to Belgium's system though, no idea.
You're getting there.
Now apply that to the subject and individual under discussion (rather than yourself) and let's see where we end up.
What you're describing is more like a court appointed attorney rather than a high priced criminal defence lawyer, which is my reference.
If you haven't noticed that I'm siding with the court over buzzfeed I can't help you.
Oh, I 'm aware of that but I wasn't asking for help.
I've been represented by a court appointed attorney (minor misdemeanor). He advised me to plead guilty to a lesser charge, as "it would be my first hit"
I understand that they have unfairly huge workloads but every one deserves an attorney dedicated to their cause.
Now that does not include unfairly smearing/harassing the plaintiff. But establishing reasonable doubt is the whole point of the process.
A lot of the rhetoric around rape prosecutions is baffling to be honest. It is a shame that many don't go prosecuted, that doesn't mean we ignore judicial process, especially in a country where if we go back to the 1920s, rape accusations were common precursors to extrajudicial lynchings.
I've been represented by a court appointed attorney (minor misdemeanor). He advised me to plead guilty to a lesser charge, as "it would be my first hit"
I understand that they have unfairly huge workloads but every one deserves an attorney dedicated to their cause.
Now that does not include unfairly smearing/harassing the plaintiff. But establishing reasonable doubt is the whole point of the process.
A lot of the rhetoric around rape prosecutions is baffling to be honest. It is a shame that many don't go prosecuted, that doesn't mean we ignore judicial process, especially in a country where if we go back to the 1920s, rape accusations were common precursors to extrajudicial lynchings.
I don't disagree with most of this. Court appointed attorneys are often overworked and trying to get the best result for the least effort due to their workload but they are closer to what Robin describes than a big firm lawyer on an expensive retainer.
Anyway, it's starting to look like his greatest legacy will be increased safety standards for helicopter travel.
Not really, but like I said it's probably different here than in the US. Those high priced attorneys are the protectors of the constitutional state in times like these, e.g. when they defend terrorists whose trial has already taken place in the media and in public. It's a fecking disgrace how the media gets away unpunished with so many things these days.
Anyway, getting off topic. I didn't follow the case back then but Kobe's defense was in the wrong if they used the media to their advantage. Cases should be held in court and nowhere else. However it's probably quite telling that they felt the need to do that and resort to those tactics.
Not trying to wum, or upset people. The reason I summarised it with the word rape is because some people will read his statement and not fully understand what it is he is saying. @Raoul made the point that he is speaking in legal terms and that's true. I didn't spin what he said though, just summarised it.
Kobe Bryant "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. "
I didn't spin anything. That's him in his own words saying he understands why the victim feels she was raped. Do you disagree?
This information has been widely available for a long time. It's important that people are made aware of it otherwise those like yourself will jump to defend the accused without being informed.
That's your view, others will view it differently. It depends on the individual and their general philosophy.
I agree.
You'll know far more than me about how the case would play out, but why would suicidal issues play a part? Would it be about her state of mind during the incident and while making the accusation etc?
Regarding the bolded, as far as I know (feel free to correct me on this) the only evidence was material on her underwear, would that be enough to confirm she had sex during the time window?
Makes sense from a high level view, but the closer one gets, the more one can kind of distinguish between different kinds of adoration given to certain celebrities by the public in general. There are a couple of reasons why Kobe is getting a certain level of reaction from the sporting world in general.
I've always been more interested in rehabilitation than punishment. I'm not the alleged victim but even if I was, my desire for revenge should be subsidiary to the need for society to 1. protect it's citizens and 2. rehabilitate offenders and make them productive and positive members of society again. Even if he did it, it's the growth since then that's factored into why for many people, it's a chapter in his life, not his entire life. Unlike OJ.
The attempted suicides in combination with the schizophrenia pills would no doubt be brought up by defense to question her state of mind, yeah. I'm not saying it should play a role but it would definitely be brought up.
I was mistaken apparently, but defense would have a field day with these kind of things imo. If you add up all separate bits, I think they would've planted sufficient reasonable doubt but that's just my two cents. I'm in civil/tax law and we do things very different over here than in the USA from a criminal perspective anyway.