Wealthy Child Molester Gets Probation, Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You haven't been there/done that. I have.

You want to poll the participants in this thread on how many of us are survivors of sexual violence?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

You want to poll the participants in this thread on how many of us are survivors of sexual violence?

I don't see how that's remotely relevant. Is it somehow offensive to a survivor of sexual violence to discuss the possibility of the innocence of someone even the prosecutor thought might not be convicted at trial?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't see how that's remotely relevant. Is it somehow offensive to a survivor of sexual violence to discuss the possibility of the innocence of someone even the prosecutor thought might not be convicted at trial?

It is relevant because you keep tossing around the word "rare" in discussing child molestation, specifically in terms of father/child abuse. Would that it were "rare".

You also keep making unfounded assumptions on everyone who comments. You really don't know what our experience in/with the legal system is, the specifics of our educations, our credentials, and our understanding of the issue of child abuse and the potential for false accusations. (Some of us have to, on an on-going basis, receive training in recognizing and reporting child abuse - possibly even more than you, with your law degree. Imagine that. ) All you can do is tout your own correctness and everyone else's lack of a law degree and hence inability to logically engage in this discussion.

The fact that you can't recognize your own use of put downs and insults is astounding.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It is relevant because you keep tossing around the word "rare" in discussing child molestation, specifically in terms of father/child abuse. Would that it were "rare".

It's not common...therefore, rare.

You also keep making unfounded assumptions on everyone who comments. You really don't know what our experience in/with the legal system is, the specifics of our educations, our credentials, and our understanding of the issue of child abuse and the potential for false accusations. (Some of us have to, on an on-going basis, receive training in recognizing and reporting child abuse - possibly even more than you, with your law degree. Imagine that. ) All you can do is tout your own correctness and everyone else's lack of a law degree and hence inability to logically engage in this discussion.

No one so far has stated they have any experience in plea negotiations. What is your experience in plea negotiations in criminal court?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's not common...therefore, rare.



No one so far has stated they have any experience in plea negotiations. What is your experience in plea negotiations in criminal court?

Rare is different than uncommon. Murder is (thankfully) uncommon, but I wouldn't say it is rare. Surely you understand the difference in both the connotative and denotative meaning of the words in question. Given your exemplary education I would expect a higher than seventh grade understanding of the subtle differences. (Please note - this is not an insult; as I teach seventh grade, I am merely pointing out that defining "rare" as merely "uncommon" is on-level with my seventh graders).

Were the issue only plea negotiations you might have a point.

It's not;you don't. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do realize that but are simply choosing to ignore it in order to continue to stroke your ego. I could be wrong. It could be that you really do think this has all been about plea negotiations. If so, I'm sorry for giving you too much credit.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't see how that's remotely relevant. Is it somehow offensive to a survivor of sexual violence to discuss the possibility of the innocence of someone even the prosecutor thought might not be convicted at trial?

No. The point is simply that your lived experience does not trump the lived experiences of others. You may be the best-versed in the law, but that does not make you the only person who has been involved in this type of thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

No. The point is simply that your lived experience does not trump the lived experiences of others. You may be the best-versed in the law, but that does not make you the only person who has been involved in this type of thing.

I'm the only one who has commented in this thread who has ever been part of a plea negotiation, so I am the only person who has been involved in this type of thing.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm the only one who has commented in this thread who has ever been an attorney in a plea negotiation.

FYP.

Too bad Kevin is the only GC attorney commenting in this thread.

And I work closely with attorneys for a range of issues. While these attorneys discuss their perspectives and experiences they are quick not to go into much detail for their cases. They make general comments about specific cases, or more specific comments about general cases, but are more inclined to say "it is the (insert case) if you want to research the details on public record." To go into great detail about cases when discussing touchy topics can be construed as a version of name dropping and there is a fear of leisure talk resulting in accidentally divulging information that is not public record and providing legal opinions that are not public record.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

FYP.

AND WE HAVE A WINNER.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

Maybe it's me being recently divorced and being over men right now, but it is cracking me up that all he needs to do is stop and this problem would go away. I think he also is just not getting that "our" gripe is not with his knowledge of this particular issue, it's with his remarkably arrogant approach to the discussion.

THIS.

And this other thread was just recently "ruined" because of his abundance of legal knowledge……………

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=139889

We don't have a problem with him being a lawyer and having possibly more legal knowledge than the rest of us. The problem is that we're not permitted to speak or have an opinion on these news stories because we're lowly teachers, business people, scientists, etc., and we apparently can't respond to what's been presented to us in the news if it has anything to do with lawsuits, plea negotiations, judges, lawyers, writs, subpoenas, affidavits, settlements, indictments, answers, verdicts, or anything else that deals with the law.

We know we don't have all the facts of this case. We know that people can lie. We're all just responding to what we read, which is what everyone does when they read ANY news story. Unless you were there and lived and breathed what occurred, then you'll never be guaranteed the absolute truth, and that goes for all of us.