Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "Massive MeToo Backfire! Marilyn Manson INNOCENT \u0026 Proves Women Coordinated Hoax Against Him!" video.
-
1100
-
9
-
5
-
3
-
@metalcadude2 .. OK... bit of miscommunication, but also taking my comment too literally.
.
Obviously, false claims will still happen, but the only way to legally combat them, is to punish those who perpetuate them. When a false claim receives the same punishment of the claim itself, we WILL see less of them made. If we had some of these accusers, we can point to a certain AH, several months back, it would go a long way to limit the number of those who make false claims. There will still be some, but it would not take very many for lawyers to better vet their clients account of events, before launching a massive lawsuit against someone.
.
You and I are on the same page, but such things as this happen, when writing on blogs and social media. Peace, Muda T 🐈⬛
3
-
@metalcadude2 .. Really.. that is your takeaway here? Crimes of passion have and WILL always happen. That does not mean we should forgo punishment or assume that it will end crimes of passion. What a society silently counts upon, is the basic tenants of values shared between all of them, in order to greatly limit the number of crimes due to passion.
.
We must find a balance between punishment, which ABSOLUTELY must happen, but also not to go over the top with it and make that person emotionally and psychologically worse off when after the punishment has been served.
.
I am all about pursuing legal accountability for one who brings false charges, but just as much, if not more, for a 3rd party who manipulates another who "may" have been wronged, to some degree. It is possible for one to be taken advantage of, but with the manipulation / projection of another, turn an uncomfortable event into a serious charge that will destroy a person SIMPLY because of how graphic the image is in the mind of the listener.
.
There will always be cases like this, but the MeToo bandwagon, compounded the incentive of playing the victim.
2
-
Fenwick Chick ... Not saying something should not be reported, only that it be done in a reasonable time frame, not years after the incident in question, and that we don't see these massive smear campaigns of media tour for 6 mo's talking endless ly about a persons claimed behavior, when there has been ZERO opportunity for this person to tell their side of the story. Lawyers will ALWAYS tell clients not to speak, because the tiniest miss step can open the door and make it worse.
.
Media tours and interviews to the public space, should be legally forbidden, under penalty of threatening legal case of being thrown out. Just the bad publicity alone is enough to destroy a person's entire life and later, like JD for example... "ooopsy.... my bad".
.
I am also not saying to punish them for not proving their case, but when the case has been proven to be completely made up or blown way out of proportion, there needs to be some form of punishment for putting everyone though a process that was BS. By the time it gets to that point, the damage to the defendant has been done and not often do they fully recover. Using JD as an example, he has other irons in the fire and built enough good will, that he will be fine, but this is not the case with many.
.
I think that barring media and interview tours would be the easiest and best way to limit the damage, so we can at least do that.
.
PS> We have all seen the college stories of the "Mattress back" girl and that very well respected... wasn't rugby, but forget the sport, who were DEVASTATED for many years and all turned out to be made up by a girl who did not want to be in trouble for getting home late or something. This has happened MANY times and lives are destroyed and the feminists all say... "well, men get away too often, so we can't risk women not coming forward". Well, they are more likely to come forward when there is NO legal consequences.
1
-
@metalcadude2 ... I know some have said two or triple penalty, but my opinion is no. That is seeking revenge, not due process. As for not having a favorable outcome, this is not what I was referring to either. As mentioned in a couple comments here already, barring media / interview tours would be a MASSIVE reduction in harm that may turn out to have been unwarranted. THAT way, all of the things come out in legal proceedings when the accused can actually address them right away and not 6 mo or 1 year later after losing business, lively hood or whatever else, over accusations that were later proven to be false, or at least NOT proven to be true.
.
It is simply not possible to eliminate one party or the other being wronged, but if we take out the long term wrecking machine that pre-dates the point at which the person can respond, there is simply no way to recover from that. We have seen MANY destroyed by false claims that have never and will never recover. There is no additional damage to even a true victim of a serious assault, by waiting until legal adjudication can be done. If the charges are serious enough, that person can and SHOULD be watched or otherwise monitored, but when there are NO consequences for made up or grossly exaggerated claims... lives are destroyed and rarely do we even see public shaming of the one who made those false claims.
1
-
@TheManofthecross ... Not sure I am following you 😿 Are you saying YES for 2 or 3x's the punishment for false claims? We are getting into VERY immoral ground, when we seek to right past wrongs. This is EXACTLY what the leftist cult wants and why they think white people of today, should LITERALLY pay for the sins of God knows who hundreds of years ago.
.
Not sure that is what you are saying, but we need to make sure that "justice" is served in such a way that it is befitting the crime. It is easy to say that a false claim that would put someone in prison for 5 years, let's say, that a person who intentionally and with malice, seeks to do so under a fabrications, THAT person be risking an equal prison time. Of course, we would necessarily require that absolute proof of this be established, and not simply that the person lost the case and defendant goes free. I get that the defendant was punished by the process, but this is why there are appeals and such.
.
No matter how much protections we build into ANY system, they are all run by humans and ALL have the ability of 3 things:
1. Human error
2. Human ignorance
3. Human malice
We could have all of the oversight committees and review boards, but some WILL always get screwed. As mentioned already, I would say that a person laying claim of a criminal act upon another, MUST avoid any and all public interviews / media talking about the alleged crimes. This hold would continue until the trial or adjudication begun, so the defendant THEN has the opportunity to answer the charges / accusations.
1
-
1
-
@tonizamora8695 ... I agree, but there are a number of problems:
1) This person does not have any money / assets worth the trouble
2) The system is chock full of corrupt as F leftist DA's, judges, mayors and governors
3) The Joseph Goebbels Propaganda Media machine will just paint her as the poor victim and run every claim ever made against him interspersed with video clips of him in theatrical stages of binding women or worshiping Satan or some sheet. They will drag up every legal case ever made, whether true or even proved false, but just not say anything more than the charges brought
.
He will lose 1000x's over in bad press and will cost him even more in the long run. I wish it was not that way, but the only thing I can think of to combat would be equal punishment for proven false claims and, even more importantly, barring ANY media / interviews discussing the charges, in the months or year+ leading up to any adjudication. If the person was not allowed to spend month after month making the rounds of daytime The View and leftist trash TV, the damage would be far, far less severe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kateashby3066 ..... While I agree, the decision to file a lawsuit is with one who makes the accusation, the decision to go forward and represent that person is not. If there was a standard of max delay, prior to filing, say 1 year (some exceptions would HAVE to be made for coma or legit reasons to be determined) and the accuser were barred from a public release of interviews / details of alleged actions pre-trial, this would go a long way. Lawyers will vet their clients MUCH more rigorously and make sure some key things are able to be established. As evil the handling and persecution of justice Kavanaugh was, he was able to respond to accusations right away. The HUGE issue, was the 35+ year duration of time since alleged assault. I get that a victim would have trauma, but with that much time, we are relying on human memories and may that are no longer alive. This is an extreme example, but that whole thing should have never been allowed to be presented in open floor discussions, but rather in private to determine if allowed to be presented. In the end, he was BRUTALIZED in open floor graphic discussion and not one key thing claimed was near provable. Kavanaugh went through hell, just as many musicians / famous people, so the process alone is extreme punishment and in the end... "my bad, sorry" is the very best they will EVER get in return.
.
If these two issues were the legal standard, we may not see a massive drop in lawsuits, but at least we would not have average people getting their lives destroyed. Their income is almost always evaporated and endless stigma of being an evil criminal being dragged through the mud, via magazine, news paper articles and constant segments on nightly news for maybe a year or more. The attorney's know that a massive amount of damage can and does happen, they often seek a financial settlement, in order to shut that person up. THEN.... that person continues the rounds, is barred from certain language or details, but continues with the "victory" tour. The person may very well be guilty, innocent or somewhere inbetween, but are left with questions like.... "why did you settle, if you were not guilty" for ANOTHER several months.
.
It is not ideal, but fair that a lawsuit is filed, but ZERO alleged details would be the legal standard, until an actual adjudication where the defendant can actually respond, is the right thing to do. There will always be some exceptions mixed in with the above, as I am not a lawyer and cannot think of every possible contingency, but ALL decisions on how to proceed pre-trial / adjudication, would happen in sealed courtroom, so not eligible for media or public release.
1