Ah yes, the catastrophic effect having a person ask questions before they expel someone will have.
You know what, since you clearly don’t care about expelling innocent people and there are many unreported rapist despite no lawyers being involved, let’s just expel everyone. That way, we expel all the rapists. Problem solved.
Because there are clearly no issues with expelling innocent people in your head. It’s not like the mere accusation would follow a person for the rest of their life. I am sure they will have no issue explaining to employers, that it was just an expulsion and they are innocent, that they should be given a job.
All that surely won’t have worse consequences than a lawyer asking questions.
Your characterisation of attack lawyers as mildly asking questions is disingenuous. It’s always full on character-assassination of the already traumatised victim. You also seem to think that lawyers bring truth and clarity where teachers and administrators cannot, and you’re incorrect. The situation in court is currently skewed very badly indeed in favour of rapists. It doesn’t need to be so in school. You’re also dismissing the effect that rape has on girls and women as if it were nothing. You would rather 99 out of 100 guilty rapists get to further traumatise their victim at school. It’s because you don’t care two cents about rape victims, you only care about male impunity, just like your leader Trump
You would rather 99 out of 100 guilty rapists get to further traumatise their victim at school. It’s because you don’t care two cents about rape victims, you only care about male impunity, just like your leader Trump
If your only argument is making up fake numbers and facts and calling me Trump supporter and rape supporter, then there is no point continuing here. I can’t disprove every irrational fear you make up about lawyers in your head.
Never used the word mildly, yes they are uncomfortable pointed questions. I admitted that multiple times. But they are still just questions.
No it is not. You may be surprised to learn that Lawyers are also human who don’t want to traumatize the victims. Hell, even if they were evil and did not care, they won’t do it because it would make them and their client look bad and likely loose them the case.
I believe a process where both sides are represented and able to present their case will bring truth far more often than administrators running the process however they feel like.
Arguably true, but only because rape cases usually lack any supporting evidence. The only way to “unskew” it is to require less evidence, resulting in more convictions of innocent people. I argue that going too far in the direction of “require less evidence” is bad. That is what the whole argument is about.
I disagree
I do not, now who is disingenuous?
Again, trying to attack my character based on your incorrect assumptions about ehat the effects of this policy would be
Your characterisation of attack lawyers as mildly asking questions is disingenuous.
Never used the word mildly, yes they are uncomfortable pointed questions. I admitted that multiple times. But they are still just questions.
“Just” Nope, they’re character assassination putting the victim on trial instead of the perpetrator. Saying it isn’t doesn’t change the reality. Read about it if you care, but you don’t and won’t.
Seems we either disagree on what “character-assasination” means or one of us has flawed understanding of how witness testimony in court works.
Considering how many actual court documents I read through and how many explanations from lawyers how various rules and procedures work I watched, I would be surprised if it was me with the flawed understanding but it is possible. I was never in court myself after all.
But you are still dodging a big issue with your argument. You are saying the same administrators that are so smart they can determine who is guilty on their own without any lawyers, proper process or cross examination are simultaneously dumb enough to be swayed by a character-assasination and would let 99 out of 100 rapists go.
I didn’t say they would be swayed by it, I said it shouldn’t happen.
I’m amused by your switch from how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim to less specific stuff including some videos from lawyers, but you still, as I predicted, have no intention of reading rape victims accounts because as you’ve made clear again and again, women’s experiences aren’t what you want to understand. I’m not sure the rapist defending lawyers made a lot of videos about how they harangue rape victims in court and drag their reputation through the mud as the standard defence technique. I don’t know why you thought that the lawyers would admit to that on youtube.
Let’s ignore you misreading what I wrote about court documents and procedures and suggesting I instead get information from the most biased and subjective source available.
I didn’t say they would be swayed by it, I said it shouldn’t happen.
Are you arguing the lawyers would do character assassination on rape victims for fun, even though they would know it does not help them win the case?
Because if it did not work, they have no real reason to do it. And if it works, back to my argument about administrators being incapable.
You don’t need to believe me about how harrowing rape trials are for the victims, you just need to read about it even a little bit and you would know, but you have no interest in women’s experiences, or the statistics, you just want impunity for rapists.
If you don’t like being called a Trump supporter, maybe don’t spend so long online criticizing people for calling out the convict and Rapist in Chief for changing the rules to make it easier for his fellow rapists in school to use their wealth to not even get chucked out of the school where their victim is retraumatized every day.
Every time someone mentions that Trump is a rapist himself you start claiming that they only dislike this policy because they’re biased against Trump, where in fact we’re just not very keen on rapists making the rules about whether rapists can get away with rape in schools.
Ah yes, the catastrophic effect having a person ask questions before they expel someone will have.
You know what, since you clearly don’t care about expelling innocent people and there are many unreported rapist despite no lawyers being involved, let’s just expel everyone. That way, we expel all the rapists. Problem solved.
Because there are clearly no issues with expelling innocent people in your head. It’s not like the mere accusation would follow a person for the rest of their life. I am sure they will have no issue explaining to employers, that it was just an expulsion and they are innocent, that they should be given a job.
All that surely won’t have worse consequences than a lawyer asking questions.
Your characterisation of attack lawyers as mildly asking questions is disingenuous. It’s always full on character-assassination of the already traumatised victim. You also seem to think that lawyers bring truth and clarity where teachers and administrators cannot, and you’re incorrect. The situation in court is currently skewed very badly indeed in favour of rapists. It doesn’t need to be so in school. You’re also dismissing the effect that rape has on girls and women as if it were nothing. You would rather 99 out of 100 guilty rapists get to further traumatise their victim at school. It’s because you don’t care two cents about rape victims, you only care about male impunity, just like your leader Trump
If your only argument is making up fake numbers and facts and calling me Trump supporter and rape supporter, then there is no point continuing here. I can’t disprove every irrational fear you make up about lawyers in your head.
Actually, I made ten points, and you ignored almost all of them, as usual.
“Just” Nope, they’re character assassination putting the victim on trial instead of the perpetrator. Saying it isn’t doesn’t change the reality. Read about it if you care, but you don’t and won’t.
Seems we either disagree on what “character-assasination” means or one of us has flawed understanding of how witness testimony in court works.
Considering how many actual court documents I read through and how many explanations from lawyers how various rules and procedures work I watched, I would be surprised if it was me with the flawed understanding but it is possible. I was never in court myself after all.
But you are still dodging a big issue with your argument. You are saying the same administrators that are so smart they can determine who is guilty on their own without any lawyers, proper process or cross examination are simultaneously dumb enough to be swayed by a character-assasination and would let 99 out of 100 rapists go.
I didn’t say they would be swayed by it, I said it shouldn’t happen.
I’m amused by your switch from how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim to less specific stuff including some videos from lawyers, but you still, as I predicted, have no intention of reading rape victims accounts because as you’ve made clear again and again, women’s experiences aren’t what you want to understand. I’m not sure the rapist defending lawyers made a lot of videos about how they harangue rape victims in court and drag their reputation through the mud as the standard defence technique. I don’t know why you thought that the lawyers would admit to that on youtube.
Let’s ignore you misreading what I wrote about court documents and procedures and suggesting I instead get information from the most biased and subjective source available.
Are you arguing the lawyers would do character assassination on rape victims for fun, even though they would know it does not help them win the case?
Because if it did not work, they have no real reason to do it. And if it works, back to my argument about administrators being incapable.
You don’t need to believe me about how harrowing rape trials are for the victims, you just need to read about it even a little bit and you would know, but you have no interest in women’s experiences, or the statistics, you just want impunity for rapists.
If you don’t like being called a Trump supporter, maybe don’t spend so long online criticizing people for calling out the convict and Rapist in Chief for changing the rules to make it easier for his fellow rapists in school to use their wealth to not even get chucked out of the school where their victim is retraumatized every day.
Every time someone mentions that Trump is a rapist himself you start claiming that they only dislike this policy because they’re biased against Trump, where in fact we’re just not very keen on rapists making the rules about whether rapists can get away with rape in schools.