2021 NFL Season Thread Football • Page 367

The history of “confronting your accuser” in sexual assault and rape cases, both civil and criminal, is well documented. The law and tactics have been objectively sexist. I’m not sure how that reality can be avoided in a discussion like this.

 

On the eve of his wedding, Jaguars Twitter bands together to buy Trevor Lawrence and his bride a $300 toaster

 

Calling the confrontation clause "objectively sexist" and "rooted in patriarchy and sexism" is simply a false and ridiculous statement. You want to say Crawford or Giles had some sexism behind the opinions? Go ahead. Want to say victims are often confronted in sexist ways? Sure. But saying one of the most important fundamental rights in protecting people against a racist criminal justice system is actually bad is bullshit.

 

Can't wait for the names to be public so the internet mob can scour their facebooks, instagrams, twitters for one time the women dressed up as a sexy cat one halloween so they can go "SEE? SEE? She wanted it" or some dumb shit.

The names shouldn't become public.

 

You’re completely twisting the context of my statement to fit a straw man. I never said the confrontation clause is bad. I said this right of confronting your accuser in sexual assault cases is rooted in patriarchy and sexism. The creation and application of our country’s laws have often been rooted in patriarchy and white supremacy. People often do this thing where they praise the stated intent behind certain laws, like the confrontation clause, without viewing them through the reality of how it has been applied or in this case where those rights in the confrontation clause wouldn’t even be infringed on. In these kinds of cases it has absolutely been sexist. It is objectively sexist to confront the credibility of the accuser, for example, on her past sexual activity. So if you’re going defend the tactic of requiring women’s names to be public behind the good theory of the confrontation clause I think it should be pointed out that this “right” as applied here has indeed been rooted in patriarchy and sexism.

 

It's not a strawman, you can't say this (ie the bold), unless you believe the confrontation clause itself was rooted in patriarchy and sexism. The mere ability to confront your accuser is not sexist, regardless of case. I never said the confrontation clause applies for the civil case against Watson, I took exception with the bold, because it's a terrible take.

 

Except then anyone can make any case against anyone they don't like and hide behind a shield of anonymity in the public eye.

Your issue is with the psycho internet mob.

 

What a weird hill to die on but go off I guess

 

Civil liberties, who needs 'em?

 

I mean you pretty explicitly keep ignoring Victor's (who's a lawyer no less!) reasons why it's gross and wrong but okay

 

I'm a lawyer.

 

Ok, I disagree and I’m not all that concerned that you think it’s a terrible take. You’re requiring me to divorce the confrontation clause from how it’s been applied and discussed in sexual assault cases, and I don’t think it exists in a vacuum over history. IMO the fact that requiring women’s names to be public and being able to dig into their sexual history is very often defended as being part of the right to confront your accuser is rooted in patriarchy and sexism. If it makes you feel better I’m not saying I think the confrontation clause itself was created with the intention of suppressing and vilifying women.

 

Why do we need to know their identities?

 

“Anyone can make a case against anyone they don’t like” is not the take for a sexual assault case with 22 women coming forward.

The idea that false sexual assault accusations happen all the time is itself a very sexist / patriarchical view in society, statistics overwhelmingly show that it’s FAR, FAR more likely an accuser will tell the truth and be slandered and publicly accosted for it.

In which case, keeping the names anonymous to the PUBLIC should be a necessary right of the victim. (and Victor already pointed out that Buzbee and Watson can still confidentially face their accusers.)

If we were talking about a different case I’d understand the counter points being made. But Victor’s arguments here are made IN context, not broadly - I’m with @Victor Eremita here.

 

Like, we can’t only discuss the rights of the accuser and not discuss the rights of the victims. They 100% do not need to be known by anyone outside of those involved with the case.

 

In context, Buzbee tried playing this through the court of public opinion and expected a judge to not want to level the playing field. The judge ruled in favor of historic rulings of not allowing the plaintiffs the shield of anonymity.

 

Tony Buzbee refused to release these privately. He tried playing the judge against the defense attorney and lost.

Watson is scum, Buzbee is scum.

 

Is connor slowly becoming dave dameshek?

 

Hardin is scum. Buzbee offered to release the names but Hardin refused to keep them confidential. Why? Because he wants to slander them also as some sort of sick retribution for Watson’s accusations themselves going public.

That’s exactly the sexist shit we are talking about. Hardin doesnt want the names privately to face the accusers - Hardin wants them public so the public can put pressure on the accusers.

 

It’s an obvious lawyer tactic. Make it sound like Buzbee is withholding names from Deshaun’s camp to drum up sympathy for the defendant; but really what’s going on is Hardin wants the names released on HIS terms so he can win the social media war.

 

That's all pretty incorrect I'm not even going to address it. Everyone in this scenario sucks.

 

Ugh. Kept getting the lawyers names confused. Edited.

 

Imo we need not look past what Peyton Manning did, to show that perpetrators of sexual assault often have more rights than victims. Because the woman was the Tennessee Vols’ actual physical therapist and could not remain anonymous given the specified details of the case:

1) She was counter sued for libel,
2) demonized by the public who by and large obviously supported Peyton,
3) he wrote a biographical book and slandered her terribly in that book too
4) lost her career as a physical therapist...
5) then when she sued him again for defamation, he violated their settlement agreement and didn’t even recompense her that way.

(And what Peyton did is an eerily similar thing that Deshaun is reported doing. I don’t want to spell it out.)

Her whole entire professional life was ruined by the way that public sexual assault accusers are dragged repeatedly through the mud, after being victims in an already traumatizing experience.

I understand that being a lawyer is based on understanding the nature of the rules and what they explicitly say and don’t say, yadda yadda. I get that the right to face your accuser is huge in other contexts. But clearly, sexual assault is an area of the justice system where the status quo is ESPECIALLY ineffective and cruel.

We cannot simply act like the same clauses have the same impact in every scenario. If you have passion about the law then you should also have passion for adjusting and improving the law to better represent actual justice in society. It’s beyond fucked up that a judge can demand a sexual abuse survivor to go through that when there are literally thousands upon thousands of documented examples of women’s lives being ruined for seeking justice.

 

I don't know who you're arguing with. Everyone agrees with what you're saying. In no way should the women be forced to attach their names publicly to this lawsuit.

However, Hardin asked Buzbee for the names and Buzbee said no he has to file a motion to get the names. So Hardin... filed a motion to get the names.

Imagine someone tells you you are being sued for rape and you said "Who is accusing me?" and they said "We're not telling you that." I'm sure you'd ask.

Rule 79 - The Petition, Tex. R. Civ. P. 79 | Casetext Search + Citator