News2 mins ago
Anyone out there think Mike Tyson was guilty
On a similar subject to the OJ question below, only in America could a woman go to a man's hotel room voluntarily and then take 2 days to cry rape and the man still gets convicted. What did she go to his room for? a game of chess? No British jury would convict on the "evidence" and I reckon any half decent brief would have a field day with the prosecution. So how could it happen? Jury made up of bra burning feminist wimmin?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The notion that a woman accompanying a man to his hotel room automatically enititles him to assume that sex is on the menu is the kind of thinking that allows men to think that, in the event of sex not being freely offered, then it;s quite OK to take it anyway.
The use of the expression ' ... to cry rape ...' implies that you feel that this woman was simply making mischief, or atttempting to obtain fame and money from Mr Tyson. Consider that she may have been too treaumatised by her ordeal to be able to think straight.
Add to that the reaonable thought in this lady's mind that a jury full of men thinking as you do will assume that she 'chickened out' of paying Mr Tyson for his kind attentions with sex - and that she will be seen as a scheming hussy who got what she deserved.
It is this kind of attitude that leads to the appalling absence of even trial, never mind conviction, in the majority of rape cases, and i hope to heaven that any ladies reading this would not be put off from reporting such a devastating assault to the authorities, and simply prey that a fair-minded jury would not assume their culpability in a physcal act of robbery with violence - and hear the evidence before leaping to conclusion.
Loosehead, we have disagreed amicably before, but on the basis of this post, you make me ashamed of my gender.
The use of the expression ' ... to cry rape ...' implies that you feel that this woman was simply making mischief, or atttempting to obtain fame and money from Mr Tyson. Consider that she may have been too treaumatised by her ordeal to be able to think straight.
Add to that the reaonable thought in this lady's mind that a jury full of men thinking as you do will assume that she 'chickened out' of paying Mr Tyson for his kind attentions with sex - and that she will be seen as a scheming hussy who got what she deserved.
It is this kind of attitude that leads to the appalling absence of even trial, never mind conviction, in the majority of rape cases, and i hope to heaven that any ladies reading this would not be put off from reporting such a devastating assault to the authorities, and simply prey that a fair-minded jury would not assume their culpability in a physcal act of robbery with violence - and hear the evidence before leaping to conclusion.
Loosehead, we have disagreed amicably before, but on the basis of this post, you make me ashamed of my gender.
Andy I was told recently that loosehead is a woman. could you clarify that please loosehead as i'd previously assumed you to be a man.
As a man I have to say that I agree totally with what Andy said. I don't actually care if she went to his room intending to have sex with him then changed her mind. Once she said no, that should have been it.
What part of "no" don't people understand?
As a man I have to say that I agree totally with what Andy said. I don't actually care if she went to his room intending to have sex with him then changed her mind. Once she said no, that should have been it.
What part of "no" don't people understand?
I always have to laugh at people who try to second-guess juries. They base their opinions on what they have read in the papers, which is not the same as what has been presented in court. I, for one, tremble when I think of some of my "peers" who, god forbid, may one day be asked to pronounce judgment on me.
Whoa guys whoa there, Andy, I never indicated that going to a hotel room was approval for sex, what I'm saying is that she must have had some idea what she was walking into. If it was against her will then why wait 2 days to call the police? Traumatised possbily as you say? perhaps? Tyson needs bodyguards to stop gold diggers throwing themselves at him , the guy can't go out for beer like you and me without some bimbo claiming he touched them up, it's not an open and shut case as suggested above. Many of you guys usually respect the possibility that prosecutions may be false. I'm really not making a point about the actual crime or lack of the point I'm making is that whatever happenned he would never be convicted in Britain, there are too many doubts, but Bible belt America? no contest.
"What did she go to his room for? A game of chess?"
No, she went because she knew he would expect sex, and she would have to give it up, and then, the silly bitch changed her mind, which of course is against the rules, so good 'ole Mike took what should have been on offer .....
Oh come on!
Mike Tyson can obviously invite women to his room, so who is at fault here? Mike for ignoring his 'fame' and the fact that every woman is out to rip him off, or the lady for assuming that an invite for a drink may just have been that, and that not everyone finds somenone too famous to resist after a couple of hours of conversation.
I would venture to suggest that Mike Tyson was found guilty on the evidence, because he has a reputation for violence outside his professional capacity, and the victim had to re-live her ordeal in front of a jury - which doesn't sound like a prize on a game show.
Making an assumption that Tyson was found guilty because he's black is to offend a jury of his peers, and negate the fact that the evidence said he did rape this woman, and that's why he was found guilty.
Would he be guilty in Britain - who knows, we haven't heard any evidence, but he wouldn't be any more or les guilty in Chelsea than in Brixton, that's not how jury trials work.
No, she went because she knew he would expect sex, and she would have to give it up, and then, the silly bitch changed her mind, which of course is against the rules, so good 'ole Mike took what should have been on offer .....
Oh come on!
Mike Tyson can obviously invite women to his room, so who is at fault here? Mike for ignoring his 'fame' and the fact that every woman is out to rip him off, or the lady for assuming that an invite for a drink may just have been that, and that not everyone finds somenone too famous to resist after a couple of hours of conversation.
I would venture to suggest that Mike Tyson was found guilty on the evidence, because he has a reputation for violence outside his professional capacity, and the victim had to re-live her ordeal in front of a jury - which doesn't sound like a prize on a game show.
Making an assumption that Tyson was found guilty because he's black is to offend a jury of his peers, and negate the fact that the evidence said he did rape this woman, and that's why he was found guilty.
Would he be guilty in Britain - who knows, we haven't heard any evidence, but he wouldn't be any more or les guilty in Chelsea than in Brixton, that's not how jury trials work.
Why would Mike Tyson be found guilty in bible-belt America, and not in the UK?
Why is Mike Tyson guilty 'because he is Mike Tyson and she is some sort of beauty contestant'?
I cannot understand where this ethical and cultural stereotyping is coming from, based, unless you were on the jury, or know at least one of the parties involved, on heresay and media reporting.
Mike Tyson was convicted on the evidence presented, not because he hapens to be famous. You said in your original post that 'no British jury would convict on the "evidence"' - how do you know this? Have you heard the evidence presented?
'Any half decent brief would have a field day with the prosecution.' That implies that Mr Tyson, who's fame and fortune would enable him to hire the best legal defence money can buy - was somehow under-served by his legal team.
'Jury made up of bra burning feminist wimmin?' Are you familiar with jury selection in the American legal system? Read 'The Runaway Jury' by John Grisham, and find out how hard it is to get a jury of any particular persuasion, either ethical legal, moral, or in fact sartorial.
Face it Loosehead, Tyson was guilty, by law, and punished, by law.
Just what is your problem with that?
Why is Mike Tyson guilty 'because he is Mike Tyson and she is some sort of beauty contestant'?
I cannot understand where this ethical and cultural stereotyping is coming from, based, unless you were on the jury, or know at least one of the parties involved, on heresay and media reporting.
Mike Tyson was convicted on the evidence presented, not because he hapens to be famous. You said in your original post that 'no British jury would convict on the "evidence"' - how do you know this? Have you heard the evidence presented?
'Any half decent brief would have a field day with the prosecution.' That implies that Mr Tyson, who's fame and fortune would enable him to hire the best legal defence money can buy - was somehow under-served by his legal team.
'Jury made up of bra burning feminist wimmin?' Are you familiar with jury selection in the American legal system? Read 'The Runaway Jury' by John Grisham, and find out how hard it is to get a jury of any particular persuasion, either ethical legal, moral, or in fact sartorial.
Face it Loosehead, Tyson was guilty, by law, and punished, by law.
Just what is your problem with that?
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Technology8 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.