Senator Ron Johnson knew since 2011 about Assemblyman Kramer's Sexual Assault
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:44:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Senator Ron Johnson knew since 2011 about Assemblyman Kramer's Sexual Assault
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Senator Ron Johnson knew since 2011 about Assemblyman Kramer's Sexual Assault  (Read 2821 times)
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2014, 03:20:25 PM »

If I recall, his approval/disapproval/unknown was like 28/29/43. Granted, I could be mistaken and those numbers could be off, but if they are accurate, then he's more unknown than unpopular. Not to mention, Wisconsin seems to be a very polarized state in general. In any circumstance, I don't think anyone is denying that re-election will be tough, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's "doomed."
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2014, 02:40:11 PM »

A cover-up of a serious crime is itself a crime.

At the least, Senator Johnson could have called for the resignation of the Assemblyman in question. One protects one's subordinates from any form of sexual misconduct or one is not much of a boss.

If I were a boss, sexual harassment, let alone assault, would be grounds for quick firing -- if only to protect the organization from lawsuits that can devour organizational assets.
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2014, 02:49:16 PM »

Any chance the WI legislature quickly changes the law for a Senate vacancy if it looks like Johnson has to resign?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2014, 03:50:54 PM »

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2014, 04:28:25 PM »

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.

Good know at least some people care enough to look at the details in a story such as this.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2014, 04:37:59 PM »

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.

Yes, I do think it is important to know if she asked him to be quiet or not, but if a friend of yours, someone who worked for you, etc was sexually assaulted would you just say quiet about it or would you go to the police?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2014, 04:49:14 PM »

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.

Yes, I do think it is important to know if she asked him to be quiet or not, but if a friend of yours, someone who worked for you, etc was sexually assaulted would you just say quiet about it or would you go to the police?

I would lobby her to go to the police.  If I no longer sensed a threat to her safety, I would respect her wishes.  If the assaults were continuing or she was in some kind of danger, I would probably ignore her wishes and go to the police, but we do not have any indication that that was the case here.  Barring a continuing threat, I would have a hard time reporting a crime to the police when I had been expressly told by a friend that she did not want the police involved and my attempts to persuade her otherwise had been unsuccessful.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2014, 05:14:19 PM »

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.

Good know at least some people care enough to look at the details in a story such as this.

This. The reports all seem to indicate it was the victim's choice for her and her attorney to deal directly with Kramer's office rather than go to the police (until she recently heard of other similar assaults). Under those circumstances, Johnson arguably didn't do anything wrong in respecting her wishes rather than paternalistically calling the police over her objections.

The same could be said of Johnson's office not reporting the assault to Republican leaders in the WI House when Kramer ran for the #2 slot there. Doing so would've similarly violated the confidentiality his aide requested of his office.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2014, 07:34:35 PM »

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

Until proven, an allegation is simply an allegation, and for some reason, when it comes to sexual assaults, Americans tend to throw due process out the window and vilify the accused before he has had his day in court.

Certainly if I were Johnson, I would have encouraged her to go to the police, and he may have done that; the article doesn't discuss that.

But in not going to the police upon the alleged request of the victim, I don't think Johnson did anything wrong.  On the contrary, if I were the victim and someone had taken this public against my wishes, I'd be pretty pissed.

Yes, I do think it is important to know if she asked him to be quiet or not, but if a friend of yours, someone who worked for you, etc was sexually assaulted would you just say quiet about it or would you go to the police?

Stay quiet.  Sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute without corroborating evidence and/or witnesses, and unfortunately often difficult even with them.  Plus, the defending attorney will usually do eir best to paint the victim as a slut who either invited the attack or could have prevented it by being more prudent.  Worse, since the accused is a prominent person, the woman might be portrayed as a golddigger and/or publicity seeker who is trying to portray something consensual as non-consensual for her own benefit.  It is horrific the way rape victims are often victimized again by the defense in these cases, and it is fully understandable why not every victim may not wish to do that.

I'd urge her to go to the police, but if she refuses, I would be uncomfortable second guessing a horrible decision that no one should have to make.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2014, 01:21:14 PM »

It seems like a lot of people are passing judgment on Johnson without knowing all of the facts.  If it is true that the alleged victim asked Johnson to stay quiet about the assault, then I see nothing wrong with what he did.  If he influenced her to keep quiet, I certainly would be on the opposite side of the fence, but if she independently chose to not press charges and did not want the incident gaining public attention, that's her choice, and I think Johnson should have honored that.

We don't need top know all the facts. Politicians have resigned in disgrace for much less than sexual assault -- even adultery. Winning the next election or keeping a certain position of partisan power must never be more important than the non-commission of crimes.

One time may be a triviality with adultery, but one time is one too many with sexual assault or harassment. We may not know what counsel Senator Johnson gave to a female staffer. If he advised that she not press charges, then he is culpable of some serious misdeed.

The right choice for Senator Johnson would have been to prevail upon the State Assemblyman to resign promptly. 
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
.

Elected officials should be beyond suspicion of criminal misdeeds. He said/she said is not enough. But if there is enough suspicion that a reasonable person sees smoke...

Yes, I am well aware of the adage that in a rape trial, a defense attorney typically puts the victim on trial. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who commit sexual assault or even harassment are no longer trustworthy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I were in Ron Johnson's shoes I would have made very clear that vile deeds against one of "my " staffers are intolerable, and that in the event of a criminal trial I might have to testify on behalf of the victim. I would have suggested that the staffer go to law enforcement.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2014, 06:17:09 PM »

Your whole post is premised on the assumption that the politician actually committed an assault.  You may want to hold politicians to a higher standard, but a nation full of Nancy Graces going around assuming guilt based off an unsubstantiated allegation is a nation that I wouldn't want to live in.

This beyond suspicion of criminal misdeeds is a pretty loose standard.  By that standard, Al Gore is "guilty" of sexual assault for the allegation against him.

Your post also ignores the very real possibility that the staffer, of her complete own will, told Johnson not to go to the caucus or police.  If that happened, are you honestly saying that her wishes should be ignored?

How are you going to testify on behalf of the victim?  What hearsay exception do you think you're going to get that under?
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2014, 06:40:39 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2014, 06:43:32 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2014, 11:38:27 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2014, 12:22:10 AM »

The Democrats have a number of good pickup possibilities in 2016, and I would rank this and IL as the top 2. Even if this November is a disaster for Democrats, they'll win back the Senate for sure in 2016.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 09, 2014, 07:29:22 AM »

Your whole post is premised on the assumption that the politician actually committed an assault.  You may want to hold politicians to a higher standard, but a nation full of Nancy Graces going around assuming guilt based off an unsubstantiated allegation is a nation that I wouldn't want to live in.

The legal standard of  the presumption of innocence is relevant only to whether people be incarcerated for long terms or not be so treated. When it comes to certain responsibilities -- any business will separate a money-handler suspected of embezzlement from the responsibility to distribute company cash or record transactions. Someone accused of child abuse will be suspended as a teacher.

Sexual assault may not be relevant to voting, but it is an absolute crime. It is an unambiguous warning of a sociopathic personality that nobody should trust in a position of responsibility. This is not commonplace adultery or fornication, either of which is consensual.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There will be weak charges -- some based on paranoid delusions or false identification as well as outright libel and slander. But those are cleared, often with the debunking of the accuser.   

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could the staffer be wrong? Could it be that the staffer is convinced that the assault was a one-time discretion of an otherwise-unobjectionable character? One sexual assault is one too many. Our legal system doesn't usually assume that a one-time drunk driver poses no menace to the safety of others who share the highway.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Ask for a clarification of the situation.

2. Be prepared to ask for the resignation of that pol.

3. Warn fellow Republicans. Warn your staffers.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 09, 2014, 12:58:34 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 

Johnson didn't know someone had committed a sexual assault; he knew someone had allegedly committed a sexual assault.

Do you support mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence instances?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 09, 2014, 01:09:42 PM »

Your whole post is premised on the assumption that the politician actually committed an assault.  You may want to hold politicians to a higher standard, but a nation full of Nancy Graces going around assuming guilt based off an unsubstantiated allegation is a nation that I wouldn't want to live in.

The legal standard of  the presumption of innocence is relevant only to whether people be incarcerated for long terms or not be so treated. When it comes to certain responsibilities -- any business will separate a money-handler suspected of embezzlement from the responsibility to distribute company cash or record transactions. Someone accused of child abuse will be suspended as a teacher.

Sexual assault may not be relevant to voting, but it is an absolute crime. It is an unambiguous warning of a sociopathic personality that nobody should trust in a position of responsibility. This is not commonplace adultery or fornication, either of which is consensual.
Someone accused of those things may be suspended, but they won't lose their job (likely) until they've actually been proven to have done the alleged act.  What would a suspension have accomplished here if there had been no charges filed to lead to a conviction, which could not have happened without the staffer's cooperation to testify.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There will be weak charges -- some based on paranoid delusions or false identification as well as outright libel and slander. But those are cleared, often with the debunking of the accuser.[/quote]
But there's still a suspicion of a criminal misdeed, correct?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could the staffer be wrong? Could it be that the staffer is convinced that the assault was a one-time discretion of an otherwise-unobjectionable character? One sexual assault is one too many. Our legal system doesn't usually assume that a one-time drunk driver poses no menace to the safety of others who share the highway. [/quote]
Sure, the staffer could be wrong, but you didn't address my question.  If the staffer had told Johnson she did not want this going public, should Johnson have ignored her wishes?  Yes or no?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Ask for a clarification of the situation.

2. Be prepared to ask for the resignation of that pol.

3. Warn fellow Republicans. Warn your staffers.
[/quote]
None of those address my questions.  And if you're going around saying, "Senator so-and-so" has sexually assaulted people, and the senator didn't in fact sexually assault the staffer, you've just committed defamation.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 09, 2014, 04:33:50 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 

Johnson didn't know someone had committed a sexual assault; he knew someone had allegedly committed a sexual assault.

Do you support mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence instances?


Yes. Arrest is not conviction. It has no consequences other than offering a signal that someone needs change his behavior. Some people need the signal. If there is a contributing factor such as drug abuse or alcoholism, then such is a good time to deal with that aspect of life. Only rarely is there an excuse for domestic violence -- like self-defense.

It prevents an abuser from having the influence upon a victim that allows the victim to get lighter abuse in return for dropping charges.

Domestic abuse needs to be stopped as early as possible.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2014, 05:01:37 PM »
« Edited: April 09, 2014, 05:08:35 PM by Assemblyman & Queen Mum Inks.LWC »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 

Johnson didn't know someone had committed a sexual assault; he knew someone had allegedly committed a sexual assault.

Do you support mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence instances?


Yes. Arrest is not conviction. It has no consequences other than offering a signal that someone needs change his behavior. Some people need the signal. If there is a contributing factor such as drug abuse or alcoholism, then such is a good time to deal with that aspect of life. Only rarely is there an excuse for domestic violence -- like self-defense.

It prevents an abuser from having the influence upon a victim that allows the victim to get lighter abuse in return for dropping charges.

Domestic abuse needs to be stopped as early as possible.

And if it doesn't result in a conviction, doesn't it have the increased possibility of making the victim's life a living hell post-arrest, or even worse, open them up to being more at danger of a future attack?

If an adult, mentally-competent victim of a crime makes a conscious, choice, free from undue influence from a biased party, not to report it, that should be their choice.  It should not be someone else's decision to second-guess their reasoned, rational choice.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2014, 12:00:48 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Isn't there an ethical problem with knowing someone committed a Sexual Assault and not alerting the Authorities??  This wasn't some minor crime that Johnson stayed quiet about.   

We don't even know who wanted who to stay quiet first, but even assuming that she was the one who wanted to stay quiet, when its something like sexual assault and you know about it, you have an ethical responsibility to do something about it. 

Johnson didn't know someone had committed a sexual assault; he knew someone had allegedly committed a sexual assault.

Do you support mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence instances?

Yes, someone that beats the crap out of their wife/ girlfriend, etc needs to be stopped asap, regardless of whether or not wants to press charges.  Same for those who rape, sexually assault someone.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2014, 12:18:34 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Well, that's one opinion, which you are entitled to. Personally, I think that sexual assault is a serious crime, and if someone is alleging it, the proper authorities should be notified, regardless of rather or not confidentiality is requested, because other persons could be at risk of being attacked.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2014, 08:22:59 PM »

Confidentiality is one thing, but when a crime has allegedly been committed, that makes confidentiality less of a valid issue. Kramer moving up in the leadership could have given him more authority to commit crime unchecked, as more authority can equal the ability to shut people up. When Kramer moved up, that's when Johnson should have had a talk with the leadership.

I'd argue that he should've made that appeal to the alleged victim first.  If, after making that plea, she still wanted him to stay quiet, I still think there's an ethical problem with violating her wishes.

Well, that's one opinion, which you are entitled to. Personally, I think that sexual assault is a serious crime, and if someone is alleging it, the proper authorities should be notified, regardless of rather or not confidentiality is requested, because other persons could be at risk of being attacked.

Without testimony from the victim, how would you make the charges stick?
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2014, 08:29:58 PM »

Here's another thought I just had. Wisconsin is recall-happy state.  Does their law allow the recall of U.S. Senators?  If so, is it too late to get a Johnson recall on the ballot in November?

With this scandal and Wisconsin generally being too liberal of a state to elect Tea Partiers like Johnson, I would think a recall would have a shot.  And flipping Wisconsin in 2014 would make the Democrats much more likely to hold the Senate...
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 12 queries.