“Rape” to a “Progressive”…

May I ask you a provocative question?  Have you ever been raped?

Specifically, have you ever been raped and then invited your would-be rapist to spend the night with you afterward, and then had breakfast with your attacker the following morning, and then, sometime later, when the alleged rapist did not call you as he promised he would, onlythen decided you were raped?

This is not a purely theoretical question, but rather is one of the cases spotlighted by the New York Times to show the need for greater prosecution of “date rape.”  The Obama administration felt that there was an epidemic of underreported “date rape” on college campuses.

(Incidences of reported rape were low…and therefore underreported.  If you haven’t learned how to think like a liberal, it’s never too late to start!)

RapeConversation

And so the federal government used its rather amorphous powers under Title IX to press colleges into more aggressive action.  Specifically, Title IX is “the federal law that prohibits gender discrimination in schools that receive public funds[.]”

What, you may ask, does gender discrimination have to do with prosecution of alleged rapes?  Well, not much.  But perhaps if you strain, you can find a shadow or a penumbra of the law (the same magic words used to find the nonexistent right to abortion in the Constitution) that implies a power to impress colleges into prosecuting more men for alleged date rape.

In 2011, following an investigation by NPR and the Center for Public Integrity on campus assault, the Obama administration decided to act. The Office for Civil Rights sent a “dear colleague letter” reminding colleges that sexual harassment and assault create an environment so hostile that women’s access to education is jeopardized, violating their civil rights[.] … A subsequent clarification of the letter created no uniform policy for how schools should adjudicate cases, but it offered recommendations like having schools inform students that drinking “never makes the survivor at fault for sexual violence” and discouraging colleges from allowing either party to directly cross-examine the other in investigations. Schools that failed to uphold standards risked losing federal funds.

Schools, under pressure, started prosecuting men using lower standards of proof:

The most widespread criticism was that the letter forced schools to lower their standard of proof when assessing claims, to the “preponderance of evidence” standard commonly used in civil lawsuits. Unlike the higher standard used in some civil trials, which require “clear and convincing evidence,” or the highest standard used in criminal trials, which require certainty “beyond reasonable doubt,” preponderance is often described as 50.01 percent certainty of guilt. If an accused student is found more likely than not to have committed the offense, he or she is “responsible,” in the parlance of campus hearings. While there were exceptions before 2011 – schools that used “clear and convincing” or, in a few instances, “beyond reasonable doubt” – preponderance was used in about 80 percent of colleges that had any fixed standard.

This brings us to the case of the breakfast date rapist.

At Kennesaw State University, one woman found that as the Georgia debate around Title IX grew, her case was caught up in the furor. According to her complaint, early one morning in February 2016, she was raped by a male friend, when consensual fooling around ended in nonconsensual intercourse that she explicitly refused. At first, she told me, she thought her friend had merely “disrespected” her clear line. She let him spend the night, and in the morning they ate breakfast, making plans to meet later. The man didn’t call, and the woman, troubled, talked to friends, who told her she was describing rape.

The man was suspended, but the Times was upset because under the Trump administration, the Department of Education is not pressuring colleges as Obama once did to convict accused men based on lower standards of guilt, and the man’s suspension was reversed.  As Georgia state rep. Earl Ehrart said:

“This is the second of the absolutely ridiculous cases I was concerned about. I label this one ‘breakfast with a rapist’ made for TV absurdity.” He noted … his belief that “with a new administration in D.C., the guidance letters are now garbage, and the threat of federal funding is off the table.”

For most crimes, liberals are the first to say leniency should be shown and the accused should be given the benefit of every doubt – except when it comes to the nebulous, murky matter of “date rape.”  The fact is that there is already an agency that handles “date rape” besides the federal government.  It’s called the police.  But the Obama administration didn’t find that police and local prosecutors were taking enough cases.  That’s because police and prosecutors adhered to the standard of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is impossible to prove in cases like the “breakfast date rape.”

Now Trump, and by extension his secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, are taking heat for going back to the old standard: innocent until proven guilty.  Liberals are so disconnected from reality that they are using the example of the “breakfast date rape” to show that Trump is insensitive to the alleged date rape of women on campus.  If this were any other crime – drug usage, drug dealing, drunk driving by illegal aliens, or armed robbery – the Times would be making every kind of excuse for the accused.

But since this is a crime against a gender, that makes it political, and the Times effortlessly switches over to “guilty before proven innocent” even for ridiculous cases such as this one.  It’s comical to realize how out of touch the newspaper is to highlight this case as a supposed injustice to the “victim,” whose behavior would have made it absolutely impossible to prosecute her alleged attacker in any court of law.

Via: AT

Shun liberals.

If you’re ever tempted to slum around with one, look at the handy comparison below and think “do I really want to risk being seen with this person?”

RvsDWomen.jpg

3 thoughts on ““Rape” to a “Progressive”…

  1. Reblogged this on Brittius and commented:
    Too often, the allegations are result of alcohol intoxication or some permissible behavior, then a day or two later, the 911 call about being raped “last Saturday night into Sunday, or sometime around there”. It is by then, an investigative mess, as consent was given but the “victim” changed her mind, or got lawyered up, or they ask, how much can they get in damages from the court, as in, jackpot. Evidence slight or none. Story shifts. A mess. Then the cops get accused of everything bad and somehow “siding” with the man. Now, we see a slew of allegations beyond limitations. Maybe lawmakers need to review rape statutes, for forcible rape, age sensitive rape (-16/+50), or something. Maybe decriminalize prostitution so men will seek “willing” females. But then women will complain about “no relationships/lack of, relationships”. This is the 21st century? You can keep it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Obviously, I am against rape. Teach the young ladies of my household how to defend themselves…take out eyes, where the liver is, shooting, etc. Only an idiot would so much as look cross-eyed at them when I’m around. But this stuff has gotten out of hand, and the definition of rape has been watered down to mean “regret.” I think it hurts real victims who were violently forced to equate their experience with a date that didn’t call back.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. When I was a cop, rape victims always received the highest of priorities. Most serious crime. Today, it is the alleged victims, who are nullifying the crime. The hospitals must take DNA samples and photograph evidence such as wounds and bruises. Defense attorneys like to parade the hospital photographs of victims nude, before juries. When attorneys do that, and get rude with victims, jurors should get red hot with anger, but few, ever do. I wonder about people, today. Or am I too damned old?

        Liked by 1 person

Please, let us know what YOU think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s