After Weinstein’s fall, Trump accusers wonder: Why not him?

[emailking]

One of the things that disturbs me about many of the posts here is that they attribute to Donald Trump (and, to be fair, Bill Clinton) the labels of "rapist" and "sexual predator" when none of these folks have been even charged in a Court of Law, let alone convicted.  If you want to use such a term about Buz Lukens, Mel Reynolds, or Anthony Weiner, that's OK; they're guilty.  But Trump (and, to be fair, Bill Clinton) have not been proven guilty of "rape", "sexual assault", or being a "sexual predator".

The public is not subject to a presumption of innocence standard. Only the judge and jury.

If the father or the brother of any poster here, was accused of sexual impropriety, and I referred to their alleged behavior as a "sexual assault" or called them a "sexual predator", I would be prudent in expecting either (A) a major lawsuit, or (B) being beaten to a pulp by an angry family member of the accused.  And rightfully so; the Lord delights in just verdicts and a Fool's mouth invites a beating.  (Yes, Scripture states both of these sentiments, and while Scripture doesn't justify beating up someone just for being a fool with his/her mouth, it does point out that this is a real possibility, given the sinful nature of man.)

1. If there was only 1 accuser you may have a point. That's not the case here.

2. Public figures have a higher burden of proof in libel cases.

3. Even if the person is completely innocent, it does not justify violence by their family member. Knowing this, I would not expect being beaten to a pulp. And if it happened I would seek to have charges filed, or at the very least sue for damages if no charges were filed.

[Adam Griffin]

Do you know how many charges of sexual assault and rape are not really sexual assault and rape? Liberals cry about how "75% of rapes and sexual assaults go unpunished." What they are failing to understand is that those cases are typically not sexual assault or rape.

An NFL player is arrested every seven days, on average, for crimes as varied as domestic abuse and rape, gun violations, drug offenses, disorderly conduct, burglary, breaking traffic laws, and occasionally even murder. Why do you think people (since I was a teen atleast) refer to it as the "National Felony League"?

Naso, didn't anybody tell you that 75% of those NFL abuse and rape cases aren't actually abuse and rape?

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the things that disturbs me about many of the posts here is that they attribute to Donald Trump (and, to be fair, Bill Clinton) the labels of "rapist" and "sexual predator" when none of these folks have been even charged in a Court of Law, let alone convicted.  If you want to use such a term about Buz Lukens, Mel Reynolds, or Anthony Weiner, that's OK; they're guilty.  But Trump (and, to be fair, Bill Clinton) have not been proven guilty of "rape", "sexual assault", or being a "sexual predator".

The public is not subject to a presumption of innocence standard. Only the judge and jury.

If the father or the brother of any poster here, was accused of sexual impropriety, and I referred to their alleged behavior as a "sexual assault" or called them a "sexual predator", I would be prudent in expecting either (A) a major lawsuit, or (B) being beaten to a pulp by an angry family member of the accused.  And rightfully so; the Lord delights in just verdicts and a Fool's mouth invites a beating.  (Yes, Scripture states both of these sentiments, and while Scripture doesn't justify beating up someone just for being a fool with his/her mouth, it does point out that this is a real possibility, given the sinful nature of man.)

1. If there was only 1 accuser you may have a point. That's not the case here.

2. Public figures have a higher burden of proof in libel cases.

3. Even if the person is completely innocent, it does not justify violence by their family member. Knowing this, I would not expect being beaten to a pulp. And if it happened I would seek to have charges filed, or at the very least sue for damages if no charges were filed.

Well, no, it doesn't justify a felonious battery.  But when you lightly accuse folks of serious and shameful acts to the point where you are trying them in the court of public opinion, when someone lashes back violently, you shouldn't be surprised.  Make no mistake; the folks who do such a violent act should go to jail.

But sexual offenses are offenses that ought not be tried in the Court of Public Opinion.  Such acts DO provoke folks to violence.  And, while not rightly so, such action creates damage to innocent persons that their reputations never recover. 

A whole group of Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper some years back.  The black community and the feminist community protested.  The "demanded justice", namely, an indictment of the players.  The prosecutor, a liberal Democrat in a liberal Democratic County (but it could have been a conservative Republican in a conservative Republican county) bowed to public pressure, bent rules, and indicted three (3) players.  The college coach cancelled the lacrosse season.  Public outcry demanded that the players be charged with a hate crime.  The lacrosse coach was forced to resign.  46 of 47 players were ordered to give DNA samples. 

In the end, a combination of inconsistencies of the accuser, and misconduct by the prosecutor, resulted in the charges being dismissed.  But the damage had been done.  Not just the three (3) players charged, but the entire lacrosse team, was stigmatized.  To those who throw labels around loosely, I would ask them where wrongly accused folks go to get their good names back.

No, I'm not for beating the crap out of people, and I'm not for making things difficult on victims, who have a right to see justice done when they are wronged.  But when people heap on accusations on folks when they don't deserve it, they harm folks in real ways, and without basis.  Perhaps folks can deal with public figures in the same manner they would want someone in their family to be dealt with in the case of unseemly accusations such as the ones we are talking about.  Perhaps I'm aiming high here.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the father or the brother of any poster here, was accused of sexual impropriety, and I referred to their alleged behavior as a "sexual assault" or called them a "sexual predator", I would be prudent in expecting either (A) a major lawsuit, or (B) being beaten to a pulp by an angry family member of the accused.

So if my father raped someone, and she accused him of rape, I would be justified in beating his rape victim to a pulp? This is Americanism?

No, you wouldn't be justified.  And you wouldn't be justified if the accusation was false, either.

I think you know full well what I said and meant.  Trying these sorts of things in the press or with mob justice never ends well.  I'm for justice in Courts.  That requires going through the process.  It also requires that proof be submitted.  This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.

[emailking]

Well, no, it doesn't justify a felonious battery.  But when you lightly accuse folks of serious and shameful acts to the point where you are trying them in the court of public opinion, when someone lashes back violently, you shouldn't be surprised.

Actually, I would be surprised. Sure, it would be a lot less surprising than being assaulted by some random person in the street, but I think it would still be very unlikely. Most people do not have the courage to physically attack someone else.

But sexual offenses are offenses that ought not be tried in the Court of Public Opinion.

So you claim, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se. Certainly not in a case with 10+ accusers.

A whole group of Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper some years back.

It's honestly apples and oranges man. First of all, there weren't multiple accusers. Secondly, didn't we know within days that one of the guys was at an ATM when she said she was assaulted? Doesn't mean he didn't do it, but it certainly begins to raise doubts about her memory of the events. We're now a year later on this with Trump. Look I'll grant you it's entirely possible that not all of the 13 women are being truthful, just as it might be the case with anyone alleging sexual assault. But I think it's simply absurd to conclude there's no truth to any of the stories, or to operate on that assumption because there's no conviction.