New info on Kobe case

Ryanwb

ASFN IDOL
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,576
Reaction score
6
Location
Mesa
Originally posted by SirStefan32
TheRealHardaway, why does RKelly sounds so familiar to me? What is the significance of that name?

Rkelly is a child molesting R&B artist
 

Ryanwb

ASFN IDOL
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,576
Reaction score
6
Location
Mesa
No, try because everybody who has ever known Kobe Bryant closely that has come out to talk about him has said nothing but good stuff.

So it is impossible for him to EVER make a mistake...he is perfect.

Get a life dude
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
SirStefan, I haven't been to law school, but I know a lot about the LSAT, having taught prep courses for it. My humble opinion is that you need to do a better job of following what the argument is really about.

The objection is to your characterization of the victim as a "*****." Your reaction is to say that, if Bryant is acquitted in the trial, that will vindicate your criticism of the girl's character.

But, when pressed, you acknowledge that the legal system is imperfect, so what you will really do is put your faith in the "accuracy" of the court proceedings.

The incorrect leap that you're making -- and which some on the other side of the argument are rejecting, even though that hasn't been made explicit -- is that any acquittal of Bryant will "prove," as far as the law is concerned, that the victim is a *****.

In other words, it is possible for Bryant to be acquitted and for the girl's story to be correct. This possibility is what you keep dodging around.

Slightly more formally,

Step 1 in the defense you are using:

(Bryant acquitted in court room)
implies
(Bryant legally not guilty).

This is correct.

Step 2:

(Bryant legally not guilty)
implies
(Rape legally did not occur)

This is correct, albeit only in the thinnest legal sense. Still, you may define the terms of the argument such that this is correct.

Step 3:

(Rape legally did not occur)
implies
(Victim lied for self-serving reasons and/or is a *****)

This is incorrect, and your reliance on this step renders your entire argument invalid.

I'm not stating an opinon here; this is an analytical perspective on what I think you're trying to say. You might want to study it before you begin your law school applications. ;)
 
Last edited:

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
If Kobe's ex-girlfriend comes out and says, "I dated Kobe for 2 years, and he was always nothing but a gentleman to me and everybody around us,"

This would mean nothing. It would be like in a murder trial, having a character witness say, "Gee, he never tried to kill me."

Some have said that she's been a wreck for the past 3 months, has always been looking for major attention, and even bragged about the size of Kobe's penis.

Does it occur to you that maybe there's a big PR machine out to destroy the girl's image? "Some have said"? What, you read it in the Enquirer? Heard it on Fox news? Saw it on the internet? Heard it from one of your high school friends in the "mens" locker room?

Actually, I myself believe him because it seriously looks like he's telling the truth

It's a pity I just sold my used car to someone else. I can come across as pretty truthful too.

Let me guess -- after Bryant is acquitted, he'll take a year's leave from the NBA so that he can search for "the real rapist."

Your credulity knows no bounds.
 

Billythekid

All Star
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Posts
693
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by elindholm
It's a pity I just sold my used car to someone else. I can come across as pretty truthful too.
[/B]

Yeah you bastard!!! The brakes gave out on me driving home! And that rattling noise WASN'T the car next to us like you told me, when test driving it!



Kobe's past is totally irrelavant if there is substantial evidence... Kobe has already lied. Kiddfan, Why are you so adamant that he's telling the truth. "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS" yada yada ya. Then he said he did commit adultery.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
73,144
Reaction score
25,032
Location
Killjoy Central
Originally posted by SirStefan32
Now it's nothing more than an equivalent of a date-rape.

Rape is rape.

If at any time she said "NO" and he did not stop, he is in the wrong.
 

thegrahamcrackr

Registered User
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Posts
6,168
Reaction score
0
Location
Scottsdale, Az
Originally posted by Ryanwb
There are more lawyers in school right now than there are practicing lawyers. Thats all we need is another ambulance chaser showing their DUI commercials to the daytime TV audience of unemployed lowlifes.

You know all people who go through law school don't become lawyers right? A lot of them become consultants or use it to gain a new way of thinking. I am planning on going to law school, and I definitely haven't commited to being a lawyer.
 
OP
OP
schutd

schutd

ASFN Addict
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Posts
6,246
Reaction score
2,175
Location
Charleston, SC
By the way Stefan, you make two seperate points about how you accept that fact that people will hate you for no reason...

Get over yourself, would you? I dont care about you enough to hate you. I care that your messed up ideas are all over the internet for anyone to read and they need to refuted.

But I dont care about you personally enough to hate you. Youre not that important.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Conner
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
36,495
Reaction score
34,494
Location
Charlotte, NC
Originally posted by schutd
By the way Stefan, you make two seperate points about how you accept that fact that people will hate you for no reason...

Get over yourself, would you? I dont care about you enough to hate you. I care that your messed up ideas are all over the internet for anyone to read and they need to refuted.

But I dont care about you personally enough to hate you. Youre not that important.

Thank you! :thumbup:

No one hates you here Stefan...only love from me, buttercup!
 

hoopfan189

Newbie
Joined
Dec 6, 2002
Posts
37
Reaction score
0
Kobe's past has nothing to do with this case. To me, the accuser's past has nothing to do with this case.

This is how I think it went down: Kobe calls the girl, she comes to his room. She knows what he wants. She gives oral sex to Kobe, but that isn't all Kobe has in mind. He wants more than oral, and in the heat of the moment, he makes a bad decision.

I'm sure Kobe isn't a bad guy, but when you're in the heat of the moment and you just have to have "it", anything can happen.
 

SirStefan32

Krycek, Alex Krycek
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Posts
18,497
Reaction score
4,913
Location
Harrisburg, PA
Originally posted by elindholm
SirStefan, I haven't been to law school, but I know a lot about the LSAT, having taught prep courses for it. My humble opinion is that you need to do a better job of following what the argument is really about.

The objection is to your characterization of the victim as a "*****." Your reaction is to say that, if Bryant is acquitted in the trial, that will vindicate your criticism of the girl's character.

But, when pressed, you acknowledge that the legal system is imperfect, so what you will really do is put your faith in the "accuracy" of the court proceedings.

The incorrect leap that you're making -- and which some on the other side of the argument are rejecting, even though that hasn't been made explicit -- is that any acquittal of Bryant will "prove," as far as the law is concerned, that the victim is a *****.

In other words, it is possible for Bryant to be acquitted and for the girl's story to be correct. This possibility is what you keep dodging around.

Slightly more formally,

Step 1 in the defense you are using:

(Bryant acquitted in court room)
implies
(Bryant legally not guilty).

This is correct.

Step 2:

(Bryant legally not guilty)
implies
(Rape legally did not occur)

This is correct, albeit only in the thinnest legal sense. Still, you may define the terms of the argument such that this is correct.

Step 3:

(Rape legally did not occur)
implies
(Victim lied for self-serving reasons and/or is a *****)

This is incorrect, and your reliance on this step renders your entire argument invalid.

I'm not stating an opinon here; this is an analytical perspective on what I think you're trying to say. You might want to study it before you begin your law school applications. ;)

Hey Eric,

Thank you for your input. I really do appreciate it. I am just a sphmore in college, so I am still a few years away from going to law school. Please forgive me if I did not express myself well.

Just because rape did not legaly occur does not mean that the victim lied forself serving reasons and is a *****. Of course not.

I am just saying that Kobe's defense will attack her character in order to shatter her credibility. They will play two cards:

1. Her psychological unstability. (Suicide attempts, depressions, etc.)

2. Her past sex life.

I already admitted in the other thread that I was wrong to just say that she is a *****. I should have said that I think she is a *****, or that Kobe's defense will portray her as such.
(I believe it was you who called me out on that one, and you were absolutely right.)

So, step three in your analysis does not exactly portray what I am saying. Verdict, in and of itself, does not have anything to do with her character. However, in order to get the verdict they want, they will have to portray her as a self serving individual, etc.

I guess it is possible for her story to be true and KObe to be acquitted, but not very likely. See, Bryant has NOTHING if her credibility is not destroy. What I am trying to say is that defense will have to destroy her credibility to get Bryant acquitted.

I hope this clarifies my position. If it does not, or if I am still making a mistake, please let me know Eric. I am open to learning, and you are definitely a very intelligent man.

What do you teach?

Stefan
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Conner
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
36,495
Reaction score
34,494
Location
Charlotte, NC
Originally posted by hoopfan189


I'm sure Kobe isn't a bad guy, but when you're in the heat of the moment and you just have to have "it", anything can happen.

Nice way of minimalizing. :rolleyes:
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
I should have said ... that Kobe's defense will portray her as such.

Ah. I think you're dead right on that one.

What I am trying to say is that defense will have to destroy her credibility to get Bryant acquitted.

Well, they wouldn't have to destroy her credibility if Bryant were actually innocent, but they probably would anyway, just to be on the safe side.

If it does not, or if I am still making a mistake, please let me know Eric.

I didn't mean to be patronizing; I just thought it was time to try to sift through the noise.

What do you teach?

http://www.music.pomona.edu/orchestra/ecl.htm
 

SirStefan32

Krycek, Alex Krycek
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Posts
18,497
Reaction score
4,913
Location
Harrisburg, PA
Originally posted by elindholm
I should have said ... that Kobe's defense will portray her as such.

Ah. I think you're dead right on that one.

Thank you.


Originally posted by elindholm
Well, they wouldn't have to destroy her credibility if Bryant were actually innocent, but they probably would anyway, just to be on the safe side.

Exactly!


Originally posted by elindholm
I didn't mean to be patronizing; I just thought it was time to try to sift through the noise.

No problem. You did a very good job of sifting through the noise. I think we all understand each other better now.


Impressive. I am a big fan of classical music.

:thumbup:
 

rkellysunsfan

Newbie
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Jul 12, 2003
Posts
28
Reaction score
0
Why are you so adamant that he's telling the truth. "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS" yada yada ya. Then he said he did commit adultery.

What does Bill Clinton have to do with this arguement? Or, I hope you're not talking about Kobe Bryant here, because if you are, you'd have to realize that what you just quoted Kobe for saying is completely inaccurate, and then you'd look like a real idiot. I don't want that to happen, so maybe we should just let the fact that Kobe never said that he did not have sex with the girl go, we'll let your little misquote go, and we'll call it a day.

I'm sure Kobe isn't a bad guy, but when you're in the heat of the moment and you just have to have "it", anything can happen.

So you really believe that Kobe did it? Whatever happened to, "I'm not saying that Kobe did it, I just don't know yet until the trial when the evidence comes out." I guess if you can say Kobe's guilty, I can call the girl a worthless, attention-sucking *****. That's what she is, afterall.

Let's all be honest with ourselves here. You all believe Kobe did it, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to persuede you to believe otherwise. Many of you have already said that even if Kobe wins the trial it won't mean anything to you. So what if Kobe really didn't do it? Because nothing will make you believe that, there's really no point in having this conversation, or a trial, at all.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Originally posted by rkellysunsfan


Let's all be honest with ourselves here. You all believe Kobe did it, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to persuede you to believe otherwise. Many of you have already said that even if Kobe wins the trial it won't mean anything to you. So what if Kobe really didn't do it? Because nothing will make you believe that, there's really no point in having this conversation, or a trial, at all.

Yet another innane post from the guy who gets banned all the time. :rolleyes:
 

rkellysunsfan

Newbie
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Jul 12, 2003
Posts
28
Reaction score
0
Yet another innane post from the guy who gets banned all the time.

Yet another stupid post from the guy who never replies to anything I say.

The funny thing is, I'm in the majority here. Most people in America believe Kobe is innocent, not because they know what kind of person Kobe is individually, but because they are realistic and they know what kind of people there are in the world. There are girls in this world who are ******. Chap, this may shock you, but there are actually ladies in this world, who have sexual relations with members of the opposite sex for money. That's really no different from this case we're dealing with right now.

People seem to bring up R. Kelly every once in a while, which has obviously something to do with the handle I use on these message boards, and something to do with the fact that many people love to use points about which they know nothing in a pathetic attempt to solidify their arguements. However, in this case, it only solidifies mine. You see, R. Kelly was charged with satutory rape, because he had sex with underage girls. However, the sex was consensual, and there was never any doubt about this. This then means that underage girls have met Robert wherever, had consensual sex with him, and then gone public with their deeds. But for what? If they were fine with having sexual relations with a superstar in the music industry before and during the act, why would they then feel violated enough to sue him afterward?

The reason? They were after money. Many of them got paid substantial dues to keep their stories out of the courts and out of the public eye. Of course, satutory rape is against the law, and therefore R. Kelly is being prosecuted for his actions, but that little factor has nothing really to do with the girls that had the relationships with him.

So yes, R. Kelly is somewhat of a criminal, but it doesn't make the girls who participated with him any better. Sex, if it's not rape, takes two consenting individuals. For R. Kelly, it was him and underage girls, for Kobe, it was him and the 19 year old girl, and for Chaplin, it's him and his hand.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Originally posted by rkellysunsfan

So yes, R. Kelly is somewhat of a criminal, but it doesn't make the girls who participated with him any better. Sex, if it's not rape, takes two consenting individuals. For R. Kelly, it was him and underage girls, for Kobe, it was him and the 19 year old girl, and for Chaplin, it's him and his hand.

Buh bye, trh, or whoever you are.

Moderators, when you ban this moron, please ban him and not let him come back, huh?
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
556,080
Posts
5,431,479
Members
6,329
Latest member
cardinals2025
Top