 |
| |
|
|
ixnay
|
|
ACS Staff: 'RoN' Content Editor
|
 |
I <3 etna, omg disgaea fag
Jan 1970
time: 22:31
|
|
ahahahahahaha, the irony is hilarious:
quote:
White faces charges for asking minor for sex
Pa. police arrest firebrand 'Brother Stephen'
BY GILLIAN GILLERS
Contributing Reporter
Reverend Stephen White, infamous for preaching against homosexuality and sexual promiscuity at Yale and other college campuses, now faces charges that he solicited sex from a teenage boy in a Philadelphia suburb.
In recent years, White -- known to students as "Brother Stephen" -- has made informal speeches on Cross Campus and Beinecke Plaza denouncing minorities, homosexuals, religious groups and aspects of popular culture.
White was arrested in June after he allegedly offered $20 to a 14-year-old boy in West Chester, Pa. for permission to perform oral sex on him.
According to the boy's sworn affidavit, White approached him in a green Ford van and asked if he knew of any strip clubs, adult book stores or shops that sold sexually explicit videos. When then the boy said he did not, White unsuccessfully attempted to lure the boy into the vehicle. White then told the boy he could "make some money" by letting White perform fellatio on him.
After the encounter, the boy reported the van's license plate number to his mother, who then contacted the police.
White will be tried on Nov. 24 on four charges, including criminal attempt to lure a child into a motor vehicle and criminal solicitation to involuntary deviant sexual intercourse.
Stan Billie, a detective at the West Chester Police Department, said he believed this may not be White's only sex offense, although no other victims have come forward.
"Based on my experiences, these things don't just happen once," Billie said.
At Yale, news of White's arrest elicited student reactions ranging from glee to indifference.
Cyd Cipolla, a former coordinator of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Cooperative, said she was in disbelief when she heard about White's alleged sex offense.
"I'm still kind of incredulous," she said. "How is it that anyone can engage in something so clearly taboo, especially someone who presents themselves as so entrenched in morality? I feel sorry for this man and for the boy who crossed his path."
David Margines '04 said he was not surprised because he felt White's moral standards were skewed from the start. He nevertheless saw a disconnect between White's speeches and his actions.
"He would quote bible passages incessantly," Margines said. "[Now] it seems the Bible would be against what he's done."
Margines also criticized White's decision to bring his child to his speeches.
"He's subjecting his kid to taunting, yelling crowds," he said. "Kids that age -- he was maybe three -- need sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, not scripture, brimstone, and hellfire."
Mike Schwartz '05 said he was pleased that White's apparent hypocrisy had been exposed.
"There's a sick satisfaction that someone so preachy is so flawed," he said. "I'm trying not to be thrilled about it."
Yale students remember White's rants with mixed amusement and disdain.
"He was too offensive to be taken seriously," Cipolla said. "I felt bad for being entertained, but I was just enjoying a spectacle."
Cipolla said she found White's exaggerated ramblings less insulting than subtle, unintentionally prejudiced comments.
Schwartz, however, objected more vehemently to White's message and tactics.
"It's hard not to get offended [by White]," Schwartz said. "He represents that parochial closed-mindedness -- that holier-than-thou attitude." |
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=23709
Though when I first read this headline I hoped it was about Fred Phelps. Oh well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ixnay
Though when I first read this headline I hoped it was about Fred Phelps. Oh well. |
Yeah, me too. Frankly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
On the one hand, I want to laugh hysterically. On the other, I'm horrified to think of all his other victims.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
I think all of your opinions on this are deplorable.
Yes, I think this guy is a sleeze but why the hell do you all assume he did it?
AH-so because some 14 year old says he did it, with no other evidence, it must be true, exactly!
Innocent untill proven guilty anyone?
If this guy is as loud a mouthed piece of trash as described, how do we know the kid didnt hear a speech, was offended and made the allegations, or a friend or familly member was offended and convinced the kid to make the allegations?
WHY would he offer the kid $20 to give him a hummer? Dose that not seem a little reckless? None of this makes any sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vesayen
I think all of your opinions on this are deplorable.
Yes, I think this guy is a sleeze but why the hell do you all assume he did it?
AH-so because some 14 year old says he did it, with no other evidence, it must be true, exactly!
Innocent untill proven guilty anyone?
|
I assume he did it because the victim (if true) has no real incentive to expose himself and his family to a lot of expense, ridicule and humiliation to prove a point that doesn't relate to him in the slightest.
If I was a juror, I'd be duty bound to convict or acquit on the basis of the evidence presented and the jury instructions, not my initial opinion.
Innocence until proven guilty is nothing more than a presumption for legal purposes at trial, it's meaningless outside that context. We're not obligated to assume "oh, that poor innocent man slanderously accused of wrongdoing."
If you want disgust, why is it than when it's a sexual crime, the victim's word is demonized? If the kid reported the van leaving the scene of a homicide or armed robbery and described the perp, then the rules are different. When it's a sex crime, the victim either made it up, or wanted it, but lied later.
quote:
WHY would he offer the kid $20 to give him a hummer? Dose that not seem a little reckless? None of this makes any sense. |
Why would anyone? Yet it's a common sexual predator trick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I was hoping for Phelps, too, but I'm a bit taken aback by the instant assumption of guilt here. Same goes for that police statement prior to any trial, which seems blatently unprofessional. |
Cops and DA's often refer to "suspects" as "*******s" and assume the guy they're trying to build a case against is guilty - if you assumed he was innocent, why would you waste time putting together a case at all. We have an adversarial system. Now a judge saying soemthing like that would be beyond unprofessional, but coming from a cop or DA, it's a non-issue, IMO.
quote:
Quick poll: how many of you are convinced of Kobe's guilt, with it's stronger evidence, and how many think it's likely he's raped before? |
Statistically, multiple or serial rapists are much less common than serial or multiple pedophile sex offenders. Partly this may be skewed data from conviction rates and reporting disparities by other victims, but partly it's due to the fact that there are more common types of motive in rape cases than in pedophilia/molestation cases.
wrt the Bryant case, IMO until the real evidence comes out at trial, it's not clear. He claims it was consensual sex, she admits she went to his room, did the groupie thang, and was getting all flirty and kissy-poo. That's a lot more marginal than pulling her into the room when she was randomly walking down the hall.
I'm certainly not inclined to demonize the victim and say she's lying on the rape part of it, but with what's admitted by her, and the fact that preliminary hearings (like grand juries) are primarily prosecutorial shows, I'm not going to conclude more at this point than that he may well be guilty, and if so, deserves to get the book thrown at him hard. If she hadn't admitted the gameplaying at the beginning, but showed the same degree of trauma and the DNA evidence was clear, I'd be more inclined to assume he was guilty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Juries are emotional, and in trials that are long enough, they start identifying psychologically and emotionally with different parties in the case.
The original Rodney King trial and the OJ trial are examples in extremis. In Rodney King's original trial, you go to a venue that's not only mostly white, but is cop and retired cop and government worker and similar - the bastions of order and decency holding down the barbarism of society.  
So when you get four cops, good, hardworking, blue-collar, bastions of safety and security blah blah blah, and one no-account drunk who wouldn't pull over and then wouldn't do what he was told (and *our* officers put their lives at risk blah blah blah) you started out with an emotional linkage that was so one-sided from the beginning that facts never need enter into the case.
In the OJ trial, you had the opposite sort of identification - a jury drawn from an area that was generally hostile to the tactics of the LAPD, and had seen LAPD under Daryl Gates get away with some major screwups and malicious actions. So that jury didn't give a damn about the facts, because they were already willing to believe almost anything adverse about the DA's office or LAPD. So when Cochrane started talking "rush to judgment" from the beginning, then Scheck and others started down the "flying DNA" road, the jury was perfectly happy to accept a rationale (no matter how ridiculous) to allow them to distort their view of the parties and the evidence they provided. Johnnie Cochrane was once the #3 man in the LA County DA's office, so he knew that side of the system inside and out, and knew how to exploit the jury's built in dislike of the cops and authorities in general.
In a rape case, when you start demonizing the victim's sexual history (or alleged sexual history), you never know what road you're going down, because jury members may decide "she's some poor girl whose made some mistakes, but now she's being humiliated and mocked and dragged through the dirt, and that arrogant bastard is sitting over there all smug AND BY GOD IF ANYONE SAID THAT ABOUT MY LITTLE GIRL and I ... yeah, this bastard is guilty and now he's trying to punish this poor girl again, and IF HE GETS AWAY WITH IT blah blah blah "Guilty! - hang 'im."
Or they may decide "that poor guy seems nice, he really doesn't seem like the type... and this woman... ewwwww... God, the worst thing that poor man is guilty of is really bad taste...
It's all about emotion and who the jury will identify with. If the facts aren't in your favor, that may be all you have to work with (something smarter jury members will notice and point out to the rest), but it's definitely a coin toss.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-10-2003 22:55
|