search results matching tag: royal wedding
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
| Videos (39) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (6) | Comments (41) |
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
| Videos (39) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (6) | Comments (41) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Rape charge dropped against USC student after video surfaces
MordhausOf course rape can occur at any point leading up to and even during the act. If you have penetrated your partner and they say stop, you stop.
However, I would ask what other evidence could there possibly be? Obviously we can't know, but one would assume that a motivated prosecutor would have gathered all possible evidence. We know from the victim's statements that she can't recall much of the night, is unsure she said yay or nay during the sex, but that she didn't think he should have been prosecuted. Her roommates are the ones that reported the 'rape', but they clearly didn't give any evidence the court saw as worth convicting on. If their statements were what USC went by to expel him, that would be available via the court and I'm sure someone would have posted them.
We simply do not know and can only go by the video and the statement of the 'victim'. She seemed to be walking fine and signed her name correctly, so either she is an extremely functional drunk or she was sober enough to make those choices. She said she didn't think he should have been charged with rape. To me, that should exonerate the defendant. It did in a court of law, but not in a closed off Title IX hearing.
I suspect that what happened is what happens in other colleges. The college determines what is going to look worse publicity wise and litigation wise, then expels based on that. The problem is that in the Title IX process, there is no real fairness. You can have an advisor present, but not a lawyer if the school objects. One person decides your fate. There is no appeal process. The burden of proof is not defined as to who it is upon. I am sure that the lady in charge went by some procedure and not merely off personal opinion/belief, but we can't investigate to find that out.
To sum up, are we at the point where we should not have intimate relations if either person has imbibed any type of substance? Should we request that a video camera or audio recorder be present at any sexual liaison? Do we need witnesses like they used to have at the consummation of royal weddings? Perhaps a written contract? It just seems pretty ludicrous to me to have a video and the statement of the person that was supposed to have been raped, yet somehow we still had a punishment given to the individual accused of the raping.
Oops. That information is NOT presented anywhere.
What I was thinking, and didn't say, is that legally there is no case.
Consent at the beginning is not consent at the end. A man can rape his wife. That wasn't possible for most of human history -- it is now.
So although there is plenty of evidence that she gave consent at the beginning -- video proof of consent -- that doesn't mean that he didn't do something later that the university looked at and said -- apparently, since they expelled him -- constituted sexual intercourse without consent.
How they arrived at that conclusion, we don't know. It is missing from what is reported here.
It is absolutely not clear to me that he is "clearly innocent".
Because a man can rape his wife. Right? Do you agree, @Mordhaus?
That lovely video showing that consent is like offering tea lays out the logic pretty clearly. Saying yes to tea at one point is not the same as saying yes to tea when you are passed out.
i am NOT saying that the university did the correct thing. I don't have any knowledge of what they based their decision to expel upon.
And nor does anyone here, as far as I can tell.
Mordhaus
(Member Profile)
siftbotYour video, Lola's reaction to not getting invited to the Royal wedding, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Doug Stanhope on The Ridiculous Royal Wedding
ChaosEngineI just want to take my hat off to you. That was a fantastic comment, and it boggles my mind that anyone can accept the concept of royalty in the 21st century.
I actually had to stop talking to some people around the time of the royal wedding / spawning / visit to NZ. It freaks me out how otherwise sane, rational people devolve into fawning sycophants the moment that family of inbred losers is brought up.
good quote that is too long to repeat
Skydivers Escape Two Airplanes in Midair Collision
shveddyThe people in the video are either friends of friends or acquaintances of mine, so I can say that there is a lot of chatter about using the money to replace the airplane that was destroyed and fix the one that was damaged.
As for selling footage - your comment about greater good is spot on. I wouldn't charge for footage of police brutality, administrative abuse, human suffering, etc. but I'd haggle a very good price for any footage that is just a soft news piece with no greater relevance other than appeasing the general public's desire for human interest stories.
The commercial pressure of finding human interest stories isn't all that bad in my opinion. It can definitely go too far (look no further than the frenzy about the royal wedding), but this sort of event falls well within the bounds of reason in my book.
But above all, I'm just glad these guys all survived. A lot of them had a decent chance of getting out, but having everyone escape with no fatalities or even injuries is pretty much a miracle.
Edit to add: I'm pretty sure the FAA doesn't have to ask permission in order to get ahold of this sort of footage. They will investigate the hell out of this.
To be honest, if I film something spectacular the news wants to show (in between their commercials), I want my cut. Exceptions could be made for genuinely non-profit news outlets of course, but I don't believe for a second that applies to the major network news outlets.
I'd also, of course, be happy to provide it to law enforcement, the NTSB, FAA, or whoever needs it for official reasons or evidence.
edit: I suppose there is also a "public good" angle. I wouldn't, for instance, charge for something like the LAPD beating on Rodney King, nor would I be inclined to just hand it over to the LAPD themselves, internal affairs or otherwise. That's a special case though, and today we have things like Youtube.
Final thought edit: Come to think of it, I find this depressing. My media news pretty much comes exclusively from NPR, the BBC, PBS and Al Jazeera, and this is a good illustration of why. They're certainly biased, but at least they're trying rather than towing some company line dictated by commercial pressure.
How I got onto this rant based on a cool video of two planes crashing in mid air without anybody getting seriously hurt is a bit of a mystery though. I must be in one of those moods.
hpqp
(Member Profile)
marblesWHAT!?! Tighten your tin-foil hat, nutcase conspiracy theorist!
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
The David Kelly case truly was a fishy thing, I'll give you that.
In reply to this comment by marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
Beware what you say @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles, Her Majesty's Imperial Stazi are sure to come after you and have you locked away in the the London Tower. Or worse, have you participate in the next royal wedding!
Yeah, that's what happens to people that talk. Just ask David Kelly.
Britain is a Riot
offsetSammy says...>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
Beware what you say @marbles, Her Majesty's Imperial Stazi are sure to come after you and have you locked away in the the London Tower. Or worse, have you participate in the next royal wedding!
Yeah, that's what happens to people that talk. Just ask David Kelly.
Um, you are aware that Britain is not actually ruled by the Queen, right?
marbles
(Member Profile)
hpqpThe David Kelly case truly was a fishy thing, I'll give you that.
In reply to this comment by marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
Beware what you say @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles, Her Majesty's Imperial Stazi are sure to come after you and have you locked away in the the London Tower. Or worse, have you participate in the next royal wedding!
Yeah, that's what happens to people that talk. Just ask David Kelly.
Britain is a Riot
marbles>> ^hpqp:
Beware what you say @marbles, Her Majesty's Imperial Stazi are sure to come after you and have you locked away in the the London Tower. Or worse, have you participate in the next royal wedding!
Yeah, that's what happens to people that talk. Just ask David Kelly.
Britain is a Riot
hpqpBeware what you say @marbles, Her Majesty's Imperial Stazi are sure to come after you and have you locked away in the the London Tower. Or worse, have you participate in the next royal wedding!
Philly cop threatens to shoot man legally carrying a gun (Blog Entry by MarineGunrock)
rottenseedNo, I just thought you liked royal tradtions...jesus. What's a fag like me gotta do to make friends around here?!>> ^berticus:
? weird man is this meant to be a gay joke? i can't even see how it would be funny.. you're slipping. but, just fyi, i did my best to avoid the royal wedding like the plague. unfortunately, i was at a conference in another city and EVERY OTHER (HETEROSEXUAL) person in the hotel room was fucking determined to see every second of that bullshit. they even got angry at me when i continually pointed out what a fucking farce the whole event was. so i guess what i want to say is
WHATEVER FAGGOT
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^berticus:
&
amp;
lt; br> The US is not a good model for anything.
Not that I'm a nationalist, but I did notice Europe soon jumped off the monarch bandwagon after the US Revolution. Just saying...
what?! Didn't you see the royal wedding? We know Berti did
Philly cop threatens to shoot man legally carrying a gun (Blog Entry by MarineGunrock)
berticus? weird man is this meant to be a gay joke? i can't even see how it would be funny.. you're slipping. but, just fyi, i did my best to avoid the royal wedding like the plague. unfortunately, i was at a conference in another city and EVERY OTHER (HETEROSEXUAL) person in the hotel room was fucking determined to see every second of that bullshit. they even got angry at me when i continually pointed out what a fucking farce the whole event was. so i guess what i want to say is
WHATEVER FAGGOT
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^berticus:
&
lt; br> The US is not a good model for anything.
Not that I'm a nationalist, but I did notice Europe soon jumped off the monarch bandwagon after the US Revolution. Just saying...
what?! Didn't you see the royal wedding? We know Berti did
Philly cop threatens to shoot man legally carrying a gun (Blog Entry by MarineGunrock)
blankfist>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^berticus:
&
lt; br> The US is not a good model for anything.
Not that I'm a nationalist, but I did notice Europe soon jumped off the monarch bandwagon after the US Revolution. Just saying...
what?! Didn't you see the royal wedding? We know Berti did
Your gay jokes are insensitive. Siftquisition!
Philly cop threatens to shoot man legally carrying a gun (Blog Entry by MarineGunrock)
rottenseed>> ^blankfist:
>> ^berticus:
< br> The US is not a good model for anything.
Not that I'm a nationalist, but I did notice Europe soon jumped off the monarch bandwagon after the US Revolution. Just saying...
what?! Didn't you see the royal wedding? We know Berti did
The Royal Wedding: abridged to 90 seconds
XaielaoDid anyone see the animation of the royal wedding on The Daily Show last night? It was so damn funny!
The Royal Wedding: abridged to 90 seconds
Xaielao>> ^ryanbennitt:
Er, you get the Monday off every year, May Day Bank Holiday, thanks to paganism.
Every holiday we have in the US is thanks to paganism. You think Jesus was born Dec 25th? Or that he died on a variable day every spring? Or that Halloween has anything to do with a saint? That May Day is tied to Christianity in some obtuse fashion? All were pagan holidays before they were christian so kids, don't forget to tell your mothers that you are thankfully to paganism for having those two weeks off.