2005 Rape Case Haunts Ken Buck; Media Silently Tells You What They Really Think (Updated With a Comparison of Coverage of the Assault Outside the Paul-Conway Debate)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
I heard about this a week ago, and honestly I didn’t know what to make of it at first. Here’s the basic rundown. Ken Buck is running to be the Senator representing Colorado as a Republican. In 2005, he was a District Attorney. Back then he refused to prosecute a case where rape was alleged. And since then he has come under scrutiny for that decision. The Huffington Post gave us audio of the tape and while it is hard to hear it, this appears to be a reasonable transcription of what he said:
“It appears to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him,” Buck said on the hazy recording, before acknowledging she may have been unconscious at the time. When the victim went on to say she had not consented to sex, woke up only to find herself being violated, and told the man to stop, Buck seemed unmoved.
“[W]hen you describe yourself as “bedfellows,” as you did indicate that you were “bedfellows,” it’s hard to convince a Weld County jury that this wasn’t consensual, when that is your label,” he said. “So there are those kinds of factors. This office doesn’t believe in blaming the victim for the conduct of the case, but we do have to take into account what a Weld County jury sees in the relationship. You had consumed a lot of alcohol. You had a prior relationship … According to him, you were naked from the top up when he came into the bedroom. So, there are enough indicators or indications that, in my opinion, make this impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”
To me that struck me as unfair, but I wasn’t sure if Buck was being unfair or he was accurately stating an unfair reality. So I let the story cool.
And then I figured it out. All of the media was telling us exactly what they thought. Take for instance, what the Huffington Post said on the subject:
Three weeks from Election Day, stories have suddenly emerged about Buck’s refusal to follow up on rape allegations involving a University of North Colorado student during his stint as Weld County District Attorney. He declined to file criminal charges against the alleged victim’s attacker on the belief that not enough evidence existed to win the case, a conclusion that is not entirely rare with such delicate cases.
(emphasis added). And here is Businessweek:
Colorado’s Democratic Senator Michael Bennet accused his Republican opponent, Ken Buck, of showing insensitivity in handling an alleged date-rape case as district attorney in Weld County.
(emphasis added). And here is Talking Points Memo on the subject: “The woman in the case said she was raped while drunk, after she had invited a former lover to her apartment.” (emphasis added).
ABC News: “The victim was a college student at the University of North Colorado when she was allegedly raped by an ex-boyfriend while drunk in her home.” (emphasis added)
Notice a pattern here? None of these organization are willing to say that this woman was raped. Not a single one. It’s always an allegation, a claim, etc. If there is one media outlet willing to say with certainty that she was raped, I have not found it.
Now, in the law of defamation, so long as we are not talking about a public figure, the legal standard is preponderance of the evidence—that is that it is more likely than not. That is a very low standard. By comparison, in a criminal case the highest standard of proof would apply: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Each time these media outlets are unwilling to say whether the woman was raped, they are implicitly admitting that the Buck shouldn’t have prosecuted the case. They are saying that they are not willing to even say that she was more likely than not to have been raped by her alleged attacker. That is tantamount to an admission that there was ample reasonable doubt.
And that is particularly startling because I have yet to see either the victim or the attacker identified. In a defamation suit, it would be hard to even prove her or her attacker’s reputation were harmed, given that we don’t know their names in order to damage that reputation. But silently the newspapers are telling us that they are not ready to believe her. And if they are not, why should we?
Update: A few people claimed that the media just reflexively says “allegedly” and similar qualifiers all the time. But not always. For instance at TPM there is video of a number of people in clothing suggesting they support Ron Paul assaulting a woman who appears to be from Moveon.org. TPM wrote:
As the candidates arrived, a group of [Rand] Paul supporters pulled a female MoveOn member to the ground and held her there as another Paul supporter stomped on the back of her head and neck.
Now it seems very reasonable for TPM to state for a fact that more or less assault took place, here. What they physically did to her is on tape. But how can they possibly know that these are Paul supporters? People have been known to fake incidents of violence to garner sympathy for themselves or specific causes.
And the pundits are already using this to attack Paul himself. For instance Blue Bluegrass writes, after calling the attackers Brownshirts, “the debate outside the studios turned very ugly, as Republican Rand Paul’s supporters showed their true colors.” Baloon Juice has similar sentiments. And do I even have to mention Daily Kos?
Of course lost in all this condemnation is the fact that another woman, an apparent supporter of Paul, was allegedly assaulted by an apparent supporter of Conway. Can’t let the facts get in the way of ”teh narrative” right? One attack by apparent Paul supporters is proof that all republicans are thugs. But one by an apparent Conway supporter is nothing, I guess.
Update (II): On “Stompgate” Ann Althouse is skeptical, and suspects a false flag operation. Oh, and its not really right to call it a stomp:
Also, look closely. There is no head stomp. The head is on the curb, but the foot presses down on the shoulder. That ends pretty quickly. That restraint might be a reason to speculate that the men were part of some Moveon.org theater[.]
I am not anywhere near buying the false flag theory, but it certainly makes it interesting that on one hand, TPM is certain that these are Paul supporters, but agnostic about whether the woman in the Buck story was raped.
Update (III): Stomper is identified, clearing up alot of speculation about things. You can read here, if you need to know. Short answer, is he was definitely a Paul supporter. And the police should look very closely at charging him with assault.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Is it normal to have these kinds of discussions with an alleged victim?
JD (04ebf2) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:37 amThe press’ use of the qulifier “alleged” has become almost a verbal tick. The networks could broadcast a murder live on television, showing the identity of the killer, and the press would still refer to the ‘alleged” killer.
JamesPh. (acc23e) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:02 amJD, I never handled a rape case as a prosecutor, but definitely in other cases, I’ve had conversations with a victim where I’ve explained why I wasn’t charging the alleged offender, or was charging them with a lesser offense than what the victim wanted.
It strikes me as being to Buck’s credit that he had, himself, a direct, straight-forward discussion with the victim. It would have been easy to hide behind others, let some ADA deal with the fall-out from the charging decision, etc. Sounds like he made the decision and took personal responsibility for it, a positive trait for a public official.
Can’t, of course, evaluate the merits of the no-charge decision without a great deal more heaping of facts.
PatHMV (d7dcad) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:03 amThank you, PatHMV. That was my initial gut reaction as we’ll, I just dod not know the process.
JD (a30317) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:16 am“Notice a pattern here? None of these organization are willing to say that this woman was raped. Not a single one. It’s always an allegation, a claim, etc. If there is one media outlet willing to say with certainty that she was raped, I have not found it.”
Boy are you being an asshole about this. Haven’t you noticed the press use this term a lot?
imdw (96a92b) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:18 amSomehow I doubt Arkansas legal officials had similar discussions with victims of Bill Clinton. Tough but honest discussion for Buck.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:21 amThe whole issue is indicative of the dishonest campaigning we’ve seen from the Michael Bennett campaign here in Colorado.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:24 amAs someone marginally involved in the news biz, I don’t know what to make of this posting by Aaron Worthing.
Given the lack of a criminal conviction or confession (or even a trial), how on earth can any news organization be expected to say anything other than “alleged” when it comes to the accusation of rape? There is, after all, a presumption of innocence in our legal system – just ask the Duke lacrosse team members accused of raping Crystal Mangum (irony alert).
MrBuddwing (293a9b) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:32 amimdw
> Haven’t you noticed the press use this term a lot?
Or maybe not:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/male-rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head-of-female-moveon-member-outside-debate.php
Notice that they are saying these are definitely Rand Paul supporters. how could they possibly know for sure?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:34 ammrbudd
easy, you investigate. you look at the evidence. and you decide for yourself, am i confident enough in the evidence to say it definitely happened?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:37 amYou might do well to sit at the knee of a grizzled old city editor, whose sharp sarcasm would insure you never again forget to use “alleged” until a judge, jury or confession determines otherwise. (What you’ve done is akin to someone complaining that a prosecutor didn’t tell a jury that the murder defendant previously was convicted of assault. For good reason, it’s not permitted.)
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:42 amIf there is no identified suspect, “alleged” is not necessary as long as there is no reason to disbelieve the woman.
And, by the way, what Buck said to the woman on that tape is quite reasonable, though he could have been a bit more oblique with that first sentence where he said “It appears to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him.”
Mr. Worthing: You’re seriously saying that a news organization has the right to publicly proclaim someone’s guilt in the absence of a jury conviction or confession because it believes that person to be guilty of the crime? It just doesn’t work that way.
And also, with all due respect: How does being skeptical of the rape allegation damage Ken Buck? (Given his refusal to prosecute, you would think news reports would embrace the complainant instead of keeping her at a distance.)
MrBuddwing (293a9b) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:44 am“Notice that they are saying these are definitely Rand Paul supporters. how could they possibly know for sure?”
The signs they’re holding? Their intent? The fact that being a “rand paul supporter” is not something defamatory and so wouldn’t need an “alleged” qualification?
Geez. Don’t they even say the ‘alleged fort hood shooter’?
imdw (3ac9fb) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:44 am“Notice that they are saying these are definitely Rand Paul supporters. how could they possibly know for sure?”
The signs they’re holding? Their intent? The fact that being a “rand paul supporter” is not something defamatory and so wouldn’t need an “alleged” qualification?
Geeez. Don’t they even say the ‘alleged fort hood shooter’?
imdw (3ac9fb) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:45 amWhen I worked for Harry Connick – these were some of the the worst cases for the ADA’s – having several colleges in a town already known for its party atmosphere you can only imagine – also there were many false rape charges which just drained resources in an already strapped parish office
There seemed to be a pattern where a victim got the same treatment that Buck gave:
From what I could gather – no bruising (of even the smallest kind) – generally no charges
This is among college kids – being naked, not good, inviting a former lover over – not good – drinking until some memory loss – not good
No one feels good about these cases – whether they go to trial or not –
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:46 am“No one feels good about these cases – whether they go to trial or not -”
I’d say the rapist feels quite ok if there’s no charges.
imdw (688568) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:53 amI think the media pretty much must use “alleged” in all cases of this sort. First, innocent until proven guilty sure seems to apply, and sometimes there was not even an event at all (remember the Duke LAX cases?).
Second, how would one defend against libel in the absence of a conviction? Would not the burden of proof would be on the one making the statement to prove its truth?
jim2 (6482d8) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:55 amimdw
Sure take our taxpayers money and bring to a jury made up of half catholics and half southern baptist church followers (the only one’s who regularly show for jury duty in the Parrish) and tell them that this naked girl called her sex partner over drank herself silly while still naked and get a conviction without any sign of a struggle?
You must be an excellent attorney!
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:57 amEric
> When I worked for Harry Connick
Wait, any relationship to the singer?
MrBudd
> You’re seriously saying that a news organization has the right to publicly proclaim someone’s guilt
Absolutely. Its in the first amendment.
> How does being skeptical of the rape allegation damage Ken Buck?
I didn’t say it did. I said that the news media has told us that it agrees with his doubts about the case.
Imdw
> The signs they’re holding?
Right, and its impossible for moveon.org types to hold those signs. It would be like kryptonite to them!
> Their intent?
Good, and how do you know that their intent is?
> The fact that being a “rand paul supporter” is not something defamatory
Are you saying it does not reflect poorly on the candidate if his supporters get violent? Because that’s not how the liberals are spinning it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 9:59 amWell, yeah to all of the above.
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:01 amBut it it’s “alleged”, it means merely a story somebody told. Buck did what initial investigation seemed right and told the alleged victim that he couldn’t likely get a conviction.
So Buck is guilty of not trying to get a conviction in a case with inadequate evidence, which is to say, in a case which may well not have had any reality at its base.
The original account seems dubious, no one comes off terribly well:
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:05 amgreeley tribune
http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/NEWS/103010095&parentprofile=&template=printart
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:05 amIMDW
Apparently Paul supporters are not the first:
http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/04/seiu-violence-justified-v-union-busting.html
maybe this is where KY learned it from
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:05 amAW
His father, this was when his son just became famous – in fact when I quit (I was the token republican) he sent his son to try to talk me into returning
EricPWJohnson (37198f) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:07 amYes, of course they have that right.
Good Grief.
Aaron’s not saying they should do so in this case. He’s saying the fact they don’t is meaningful, as we really don’t know that the prosecutor was doing something wrong. This is one of those tough calls DAs and ADAs have to make in their jobs, and it’s unreasonable to condemn it while refusing to say it was wrong, because the standard for the latter is much lighter than the standard for the former.
imdw is just trolling, guys. I’m always amused when he goes to his ‘you folks are so mean’ shtick, as if he isn’t one of the ugliest specimens online.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:09 amSpeaking of assholes,
I’d say the rapist feels quite ok if there’s no charges.
Comment by imdw —
Mike K (568408) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:09 amMr. Worthing: I don’t appreciate being quoted out of context. I’ll say my piece one more time, and of course you can respond, and I’d be perfectly willing to let the matter drop.
A news organization – a good, responsible one, anyway – deals in facts. For a news outfit to flatly, and without qualification, proclaim someone’s guilt in the absence of the legal fact of a conviction or confession is engaging in speculation and opinion, nothing more. And it could very well be setting itself up for a libel suit, the First Amendment notwithstanding. (Or are you a Nat Hentoff-type who feels there should be no such thing as defamation suits?)
One of the funniest stories I’d ever heard came courtesy of a former co-worker who hailed from a small North Carolina town. There was a murder trial in this town, and feelings against the defendant apparently ran very high. However, in the end, the defendant was acquitted by the jury.
And the hometown newspaper ran the headline: “Jury Sets Killer Free.”
Wonder what happened after that.
MrBuddwing (293a9b) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:15 ambudd, I just checked, and I don’t see where you were quoted out of context. This is a discussion forum… why not just have some discussion?
Not true. It is not an opinion whether this rape occurred. It either did or it did not. It may be speculation (in this case it is), which proves Aaron’s point. It wouldn’t always be speculation. One doesn’t require a jury conviction to say someone committed a crime in a newspaper. Whether they actually committed the crime is a different issue from whether they have been convicted yet.
Obviously you have noticed it’s common to throw ‘alleged’ in just about any crime story, often after conviction, and very often before. So?
If no one is going out on that short limb that this rape occurred, based on this recording, then no one should go all the way out on the ‘we must prosecute’ limb and ‘that DA was horrible’ limb either, both being much farther limbs.
The standard for saying the rape occurred is drastically lower than the standard for prosecuting it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:23 amMrBuddwing is correct. This shouldn’t even require an argument, it’s so obvious.
Would any of you like to be accused of pedophilia, so unjustly so that the prosecutor declines to press charges, but have the press continually describe you as a pedophile?
Would you actually trust every editors and reporter in your hometown not to play favorites based on politics? Really? You mean now you want the press to report their opinion as fact? Yikes, time to bomb the stupid-pill factory again.
Aaron Worthing, this blog does not normally rely on shock value and manufactured controversy to up its hits. Please stop.
Patterico, we miss you.
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:29 amBudd
> I don’t appreciate being quoted out of context
What context was missing?
> A news organization – a good, responsible one, anyway – deals in facts. For a news outfit to flatly, and without qualification, proclaim someone’s guilt in the absence of the legal fact of a conviction or confession is engaging in speculation and opinion, nothing more
Whether a person has committed a crime is a fact no different than whether Bush told Dick Cheney X on Y date. It is subject to the same burden of proof in the event of a trial for defamation.
> And it could very well be setting itself up for a libel suit, the First Amendment notwithstanding.
No kidding. That is my point. If they are not willing to put out their necks and risk that libel/defamation suit, then they have told us what they think of the quality of the evidence.
Dustin
What you said. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:30 ambudd, I just checked, and I don’t see where you were quoted out of context.
Dustin: Aaron Worthing quoted me as saying to him, “You’re seriously saying that a news organization has the right to publicly proclaim someone’s guilt,” but left out the part about “in the absence of a jury conviction or confession,” and then threw the First Amendment into my face for good measure. I call that quoting out of context.
MrBuddwing (293a9b) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:34 amWell, I think you’re being unfair, then.
Indeed, Aaron thinks news organizations have the right to publicly proclaims someone’s guilt if they can see it by preponderance of evidence.
He doesn’t need to add in your stipulation that limits his more expansive (and accurate) speech point. If it were the other way around, that would make sense, but the way he replied to you did not dishonestly undermine anything you said.
And yes, he threw the first amendment in your face, and yes, it was a good measure.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:37 amDoesn’t imdimwit have some photos of someone’s house to post?
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:38 amNow if we could find such an organization, on the East or West Coasts, re Louisiana the whole ACORN
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:41 amimbroglios, tied with the whole matter of Landrieu’s
office, Katrina, remarkable how you have to back four years in the Greeley case, to find the facts
Real the post again, ras. The ‘accused’ wasn’t named by anybody. If he’s innocent, that really bolsters Aaron’s point.
I guess this is a shocking and ugly topic, but it’s a current topic in an election. Aaron isn’t bringing it up in a shocking way… he’s showing us the facts to support an allegation are not there, and indeed agrees that we can’t describe this man, whoever he is, as a rapist based on what we’ve got.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:46 am“I’d say the rapist feels quite ok if there’s no charges.”
imdw is now channeling rapists. Delicious!
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:46 amI remember how he used to make child-rape jokes and defend them as funny. Seems everyone has an imdw story. Can you imagine how miserable that SOB must be to get that ugly over some silly little internet discussion threads?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:49 amThis is stupid on so many levels:
Fallacy by negative inference. That’s kind of like someone saying, “If you don’t walk into your local bank, pull down your pants, and fart at one of the tellers, you’re telling me that you love the service that the bank gives you.”
Once again, AW cannot grasp the notion of what reputable news organizations actually do. Ideally, they are supposed to be objective and unbiased. That’s what the good ones strive for — actual fairness and balanced (rather than the mere assertion of it).
So when a news organization fails to tell us what it “thinks”, that shouldn’t be taken to mean anything other than, you know, an absence of bias.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:49 amDustin,
You have lost your alleged mind today. Am I the last sane person in the asylum now? You truly want the press to report their opinion as fact? Truly?
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:53 amHow is it actually fair and balanced and objective to take a different path than Aaron suggests?
You just spat that out because you want to say the opposite of whatever Aaron says, again.
Aaron is not advocating that the media say this rape occurred. He’s noting that if no one is willing to say it really occurred, based on this evidence (and indeed they should not), then we are obliged to the SAME fair and balanced and objective fairness to Ken Buck.
Your analogy makes absolutely no sense, except that you wanted to be rude. Aaron’s comparison is based on the same issues, and notes one standard is heftier than the other. Yours is to compare unrelated issues. That’s irrational.
If you don’t really want to discuss the issue, as usual, why are you here? If you think the evidence shows, by preponderance or more, a rape occurred, argue that. If you think media should be biased in one direction (your claims suggest you do, although you also say you don’t) argue that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:57 amActually in this light, it’s remarkable how Hickenlooper’s having employed an illegal in his restaurant who actually killed someone is not an issue, but a hard call on a date rape case, nearly
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:58 amfive years ago is.
ras
I want the press to find out the facts and report them. and how are facts determined? By talking to witnesses and assessing credibility. no different than a courtroom, really.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 10:59 amNo. I certainly don’t. But I do want objective analysis, and I don’t see why that has to wait for a jury conviction. In this case, the reason we shouldn’t say a rape occurred is that there isn’t enough evidence, period, to make that kind of conclusion. For the same reason, Ken Buck’s actions are not apparently unreasonable.
If we had the evidence to show his actions to be unreasonable, we would have enough evidence to say the rape occurred, whether a jury convicted or not.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:01 amDustin,
Facts are not opinions are not facts, etc. The indicative is not the same as the subjunctive. And only a fool would be certain in the presence of doubt.
The press often, in political matters – and their definition of politics is broad indeed – confuses fact with supposition, but why encourage more of that? Did your dog bite you today, or what?
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:05 amAaron,
And by the theme of your post, how will we then distinguish those facts from their opinions, since you have asked that they be presented as the same?
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:10 amras
Ask yourself a very simple question.
What evidence do you expect them to have used if they took the case to trial?
And how would that evidence have looked different than what the newspaper could have found?
I mean in some cases the police can gather forensic evidence, but in this case the man is not denying they had sex. he is denying that it was without consent. there is no forensic test for consent. So how would a jury decide whether a rape occurred or not?
It would listen to the accused speak (if he chose to take the stand) and it would listen to the victim, as well as any other witnesses.
Now what part of that can’t be done by a newspaper?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:11 amWorthing: “I said that the news media has told us that it agrees with his doubts about the case.”
They’ve done no such thing. They have, however, hewed to ethical guidelines and the Associated Press Stylebook, which many (and most legitimate) news organizations adopt as policy, though some tinker with it a bit, just as state Supreme Courts do with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. Or, like The New York Times, they develop their own. These tomes are vetted like you couldn’t imagine.
From the 2001 AP Style Book, which I doubt has changed in any substantively pertinent way:
“Use ‘alleged bribe’ or similar phrase when necessary to make it clear that an unproved action is not being treated as fact.”
And………”Do not use alleged to describe an event that is known to have occurred, when the dispute is over who participated in it.”
Worthing’s ignorance of journalistic style in formulating his press criticism is most interesting in its irony. I expect he considers his blogging a form of journalism. He needs a stylebook. He made a false assumption about a fact — accepted news writing style — and then used it as his straw man to hold up the entire post. Then he whacks and whittles in various responses trying to keep the straw man standing.
Drop the shovel, crawl out of the hole, slink off and try another post.
Harrumph.
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:12 amI guess we just don’t see this the same way, which isn’t a big problem, IMO.
I don’t agree that Aaron is wrong to bring up this issue for discussion, or that this is some kind of shock jock laziness, either.
And yet the press does speculate. It does rely on assumptions. In this case, it can’t. Why? Because there isn’t much evidence that Ken Buck did anything wrong.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to be objective while relying on the unbalanced standard of saying ‘alleged’ when you’re 99% certain. But we’re not 99% certain. We have no idea if this rape occurred. Huffpo, et al, are on both sides of this issue.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:12 amDustin:
I don’t know if a rape occurred, but “what the media thinks” — as if that can be determined — should not be considered a factor in whether or not (a) a rape occurred or (b) should have been prosecuted.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:15 amRazz, why do you depend so heavily on the much vaunted ad hominem attack? Are you actually that woman from NPR? Do you think Dustin and AW need to discuss this stuff with their publicists and head shrinkers? Are you a fool or do you just play one on the internet?
I’m just asking questions.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:16 am“Sure take our taxpayers money and bring to a jury made up of half catholics and half southern baptist church followers (the only one’s who regularly show for jury duty in the Parrish) and tell them that this naked girl called her sex partner over drank herself silly while still naked and get a conviction without any sign of a struggle?”
I’m not following what stereotypes you’re making about christians, but I don’t see how this changes that rapists prefer charges not being filed, even without a conviction.
“Doesn’t imdimwit have some photos of someone’s house to post?”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
“Now what part of that can’t be done by a newspaper?”
Why do it when they could instead just add the word “alleged”? There’s economics here too.
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:16 amRe: #47
Thank you, Larry.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:18 amLarry
> “Use ‘alleged bribe’ or similar phrase when necessary to make it clear that an unproved action is not being treated as fact.
Yes, so they are saying that no one has proven that this unnamed woman was raped by some unnamed man. how does that even contradict what i am saying?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:19 am“That’s what the good ones strive for”
Kman – Let me know who you think the good ones are and maybe I’ll check a few stories to see how they handle them.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:19 amAaron,
If the press were judge and jury, reporting on themselves, that would be true. Thankfully, they are not.
Dustin,
And more poison is the answer? How much is exactly enough, then? Precisely how often should the press report their opinion as fact? Does each instance justify another, ad infinitum? Really? Cuz that’s where your argument leads.
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:21 am“Doesn’t imdimwit have some photos of someone’s house to post?”
Since you’re being a little slimy, let’s just note, for the record, that you posted someone’s personal details, address, and discussed their wife, etc, when we were discussing a person who set bombs, tried to intimidate people, was asking for that someone’s address, and had a record of ‘allegedly’ trying to intimidate prosecutors.
So what he’s getting at is that you are ridiculous to call someone else out for conduct.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:23 amdaleyrocks,
See here for an example.
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:23 amNo, the answer is less poison. The answer here is to be consistent. We don’t want to pretend we know this rape occurred beyond a preponderence (or any other standard). But we also don’t want to pretend Ken Buck had the evidence he needed to prosecute. If you raise the standard, that only bolsters my POV.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:24 amras i think your link is broken.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:29 amDustin,
You just argued my point, not yours. No more red kryptonite jelly for you on your morning toast!
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:30 amAaron,
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:31 amWorthing: “Notice a pattern here? None of these organization are willing to say that this woman was raped. Not a single one. It’s always an allegation, a claim, etc. If there is one media outlet willing to say with certainty that she was raped, I have not found it.”……..” But silently the newspapers are telling us that they are not ready to believe her. And if they are not, why should we?”
Lather, rinse, encore une fois: Journalism is not done according to the judicial system’s rules and procedures, such as you delineating preponderance of evidence etc.
While in this instance, neither the woman nor the man has been identified publicly (unless perhaps, and this isn’t in the info you’ve provided, there was an initial police report with their names that would be available to the public, or at least to the press) they are very much IDENTIFIABLE.
There is no guesswork as to which man and which woman as far as the prosecutor is concerned.
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:34 amThe police and prosecutor have knowledge of a particular woman who alleges a particular man, by name and probably other identifying information, raped her. It is known that the prosecutor (for good reason, given the details we have) is concerned whether a jury might believe it was consensual sex.
Those straws you’re grasping at happen to be your strawman blowin’ in the wind.
I’m going back to writing my story. Deadline.
“Since you’re being a little slimy, let’s just note, for the record, that you posted someone’s personal details, address, and discussed their wife, etc, when we were discussing a person who set bombs, tried to intimidate people, was asking for that someone’s address, and had a record of ‘allegedly’ trying to intimidate prosecutors.”
Hrm. Nope I didn’t comment in that thread. Maybe someone else did under my name. Can you link to the thread?
imdw (25d965) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:35 am“Since you’re being a little slimy, let’s just note, for the record, that you posted someone’s personal details, address, and discussed their wife, etc, when we were discussing a person who set bombs, tried to intimidate people, was asking for that someone’s address, and had a record of ‘allegedly’ trying to intimidate prosecutors.”
Found the thread. Wasn’t me. Were they using my name?
imdw (0275b8) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:44 amMawy Weilly is a journolist?! Oh, good Allah.
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:48 amAt least you’re funny when you disagree. LOL.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:51 amAt any rate, Ras, I am not arguing that we should say this rape occurred. It’s merely an allegation, and we just don’t have much information about the allegation.
I’m sure Aaron agrees. We just don’t have enough evidence to say this rape occurred, or that anyone knows it occurred. In fact, it’s unreasonable to say Ken Buck failed to do his job when he decided he didn’t have enough evidence to convince a jury.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 11:53 am“Right, and its impossible for moveon.org types to hold those signs.”
Why is the standard to discount everything that is not “impossible” ?
“Good, and how do you know that their intent is?”
They’re attacking speech they dont like.
“Are you saying it does not reflect poorly on the candidate if his supporters get violent? Because that’s not how the liberals are spinning it.”
One, I said “defamatory” that’s different than “reflect poorly.” Plus, its defamatory to the subject of the allegation — here the supporter, not Paul.
I don’t understand your need to be obstinate about this. Are you seriously unfamiliar with the media’s practice of using the word “alleged” ?
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:10 pm“Right, and its impossible for moveon.org types to hold those signs.”
Why is the standard to discount everything that is not “impossible” ? where did you get that idea?
“Good, and how do you know that their intent is?”
They’re attacking speech they dont like.
“Are you saying it does not reflect poorly on the candidate if his supporters get violent? Because that’s not how the liberals are spinning it.”
One, I said “defamatory” that’s different than “reflect poorly.” Plus, its defamatory to the subject of the allegation — here the supporter, not Paul.
I don’t understand your need to be obstinate about this. Are you seriously unfamiliar with the media’s practice of using the word “alleged” ?
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:11 pmimdw
> Why is the standard to discount everything that is not “impossible” ?
I was engaged in sarcastic exaggeration. in fact faking an incident like this is easy.
> They’re attacking speech they dont like.
Or so it seems. But how do you know it is not just an act?
> Are you seriously unfamiliar with the media’s practice of using the word “alleged” ?
Sure, so why aren’t they with this assault?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:19 pm“Or so it seems. But how do you know it is not just an act?”
From several indicia, including the fact that the dude’s name is on a rand paul campaign ad that ran the same day as the attack.
“Sure, so why aren’t they with this assault?”
Because the assault isn’t really alleged — it’s on TV.
imdw (47a9bf) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:38 pmAlso cuz the guy, a Rand Paul campaign coordinator, admitted to doing it and apologized.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/26/2010 @ 12:58 pmDustin,
Again, you are arguing my point, not yours (unless you’ve switched). I.E. …
… which is why referring to the incident as a rape, in the indicative, would be dishonest. It would imply that Buck knew about a clear-cut case of rape yet did nothing, but that’s not what happened. What happened was that a far-from-clearcut allegation was made. It is both correct and ethical to describe the incident as “alleged.” If the newspaper in question were to disagree with Mr. Buck’s judgment call, they could state their opinion in an editorial.
ras (b7f440) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:02 pm“They have, however, hewed to ethical guidelines and the Associated Press Stylebook”
Larry – Are those the same guidelines they violated when they stealth corrected the piece about the O’Donnell-Coons debate that A.W. posted about, rewriting 76% of it, without noting that it had been updated or corrected?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:09 pm“Also cuz the guy, a Rand Paul campaign coordinator, admitted to doing it and apologized.”
His facebook likes include “privacy”
imdw (53b665) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:10 pmIt was quite reasonable to question who was involved, as leftist groups had sent people in posing as supporters trying to get footage and photos.
JD (4d450e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:27 pmimdw
> From several indicia, including the fact that the dude’s name is on a rand paul campaign ad that ran the same day as the attack.
You know now. now give me an answer they knew back when they wrote the article.
> Because the assault isn’t really alleged — it’s on TV.
But at the time they claimed it was a paul supporter, they didn’t actually know.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:27 pmTrue.
At any rate, Sarah Palin isn’t telling me to punch back twice as hard or get in their faces. Conservatives aren’t flying planes into the IRS buildings or shooting up the discovery channel or shooting JFK. None of that has much bearing on whether or not progressiveness/communism/etc is wrong. But any thin generalization about a Tea Partier apparently has some meaning.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:34 pm“now give me an answer they knew back when they wrote the article.”
Maybe they read it on hotair.com.
“But at the time they claimed it was a paul supporter, they didn’t actually know.”
They just had indicia of it. And it would not be defamatory to label him as such.
imdw (cd4b7a) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:35 pmimdw
> Maybe they read it on hotair.com.
Hot air didn’t have it at 11:30 pm last night. read the timestamp.
> They just had indicia of it.
is that your standard for honesty? if there is indicia, then we know it is true!
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:41 pmRas, I’ve looked over my prior comments expecting some kind of typo on my part leading to confusion, but as far as I can tell, I’ve been consistent. I do believe the press can and should investigate and report on these things, even apart from a jury conviction. I do not see why such objective reporting, necessarily relying on analyzing evidence, must be confined to editorial pages, since i’m not making a case for opinion journalism at all.
As I said in my first comment in this thread, the evidence isn’t there to say the rape occurred, even to the preponderance level. Ergo, the rest of my view on Buck.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:48 pm“Hot air didn’t have it at 11:30 pm last night. read the timestamp.”
How do you think hotair knew?
“is that your standard for honesty? if there is indicia, then we know it is true!”
I think they had enough to print that a Paul supporter did this. I’m not seeing what the problem is here. Huffpo called it an “apparent” paul supporter. Some play it safe and use the “alleged” word like with something like a crime. Some don’t.
Not sure why you’re stuck on this. Do you use “alleged” in your blogging?
imdw (604a8a) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:48 pmAW – it has demonstrated time and time again that it has no standards of honesty. It is as mendoucheous as you will find.
JD (4d450e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:49 pmAW:
Right. I mean, come on imdw! How do you even know it was a person who assaulted the MoveOn activist? There’s only indicia it was a person, but it could have been really good Taiwanese animation. Or maybe it was a bear — like a really good trained Russian circus bear — dressed up in human clothes and stuff.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:59 pmimdw
> How do you think hotair knew?
Best I can tell, they reported the identity of the attacker based on the SF Chron’s reporting, which is dated at 3 pm, today.
> I think they had enough to print that a Paul supporter did this
Again, based on what information available at 11:30 pm?
And if that is all they needed to drop the word “alleged” then what does that say when they use that word?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 1:59 pmkman’s 81 has got to be performance art.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:02 pmBTW, the stomping looked like a false flag operation to me.
Now, it isn’t one, I realize. It was a volunteer stopping a crazy woman who looked like some kind of threat. The cops should have tackled her and arrested her, rather than a volunteer stepping in. But no one’s head was stomped. This is messy situation where a lot of people exaggerated facts in the usual direction.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:11 pm“Again, based on what information available at 11:30 pm?”
How about the report from the local fox affiliate? Is that satisfactory for you?
“And if that is all they needed to drop the word “alleged” then what does that say when they use that word?”
I’m not alleging TPM has a system for it. Do you have a system for it?
imdw (017d51) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:22 pmAW – expecting kmart and dimwit, who has been banned under man names to discuss something in good faith, or anything even remotely approaching honesty is as likely as the Cubs winning the World Series.
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:32 pmimdw
> How about the report from the local fox affiliate?
they didn’t know who he was at that time.
> I’m not alleging TPM has a system for it.
They pretend to be reporters. And they can be sued like anyone.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:33 pmI also want to note I really don’t know that tackling this woman, or what appears to be excessive force, is justified. My guess is it wasn’t justified and the men were overreacting, which is why I say the police should have stopped this woman instead.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:45 pm“they didn’t know who he was at that time.”
But they don’t need to in order to decide he’s a paul supporter, do they?
However, now TPM is calling him (by name, i think this is a key difference) the “alleged and confessed” stomper. Probably having some fun with that one.
“They pretend to be reporters. And they can be sued like anyone.”
For what, not naming someone?
“My guess is it wasn’t justified and the men were overreacting, which is why I say the police should have stopped this woman instead.”
Stopped her from doing what?
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:51 pmPaul’s crew is serious crazy town, you have your hangup about Christine, as being Sarah’s least
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 2:56 pmnimble pick, they are mine, but I don’t obsess on it
I agree with you Ian. If the video is accurate, we’re talking weapons grade jackasses. Far far far worse than anything that can be laid at the feet of O’donnell or her campaign.
I think the police should have intervened, and there’s some indication they had notice of this problem and refused to do anything until it got to this point. Once random political volunteers start to physically deal with someone, you’ve got tons of problems. I don’t blame Paul himself for it. Believe me, I’d hold these guys to a different standard if they wanted to be Senators. I assume there’s a lot to this story I just don’t know, and note a lot of the facts have been distorted (for example, the woman wasn’t head stomped, not that this means she was treated correctly).
Classic deliberate difficulty from imdw.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:03 pmCould you explain this “notice” Dustin?
From what I have seen, she was a moveon/codepinko jackhole try to hold up some sign so they could photgraph nor laup’s kid under a Republocrat sign.
Let’s not forget that nor laup,s kid has had leftist try a false flag operation on him before.
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:22 pmImdw
> But they don’t need to in order to decide he’s a paul supporter, do they?
Yes, they did.
> For what, not naming someone?
Defamation
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:39 pmJD, my understanding is that the tackler tried to warn the police that this situation was going to escalate. Even if he’s a complete jackass, I think that’s notice enough that he is going to do something.
But I don’t mean to claim I have a clear understanding of what happened. I’m guessing and basing those guesses off internet claims. I can see from the video that things got out of hand, and I think part of that is because the wrong people were intervening (even if the intervention of the cops is simply to prevent the intervening that occurred).
Ah, screw it. I agree with Ian’s sentiments but am trying to be fair to these guys despite their overreach. This woman tried to make a mess and got what she wanted. I was suspecting false flag, and I guess the volunteer admitting he’s a Paul volunteer doesn’t mean much.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:45 pm“Defamation”
And then we get back to it not being defamatory to identify someone (and they weren’t even identified, actually) as a Paul supporter — even if they’re not!
“From what I have seen, she was a moveon/codepinko jackhole try to hold up some sign so they could photgraph nor laup’s kid under a Republocrat sign.”
And this is what the thug who loves liberty wanted to stop. They probably recognized her too.
imdw (cbe404) — 10/26/2010 @ 3:59 pmAccording to him, he thought she was a threat, actually. I don’t know if that’s reasonable. Indeed, SEIU and Obama style ‘get in their faces’ finger biting tactics are wrong. Regardless of political party.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:02 pmNotice how energized the trollz get about this, as opposed to the times where a leftist assaulted someone.
JD (4b2f42) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:03 pm“According to him, he thought she was a threat, actually. ”
I do not have a hard time believing he’s a paranoid tea nut.
imdw (3a28bb) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:12 pmMe neither, imdw.
Given all the attacks on tea partiers, it’s not surprising some are afraid of more violence from people like you. BTW, what you did to P’s family is worse than the heated striking of this woman with a foot (which was wrong and stupid). At least in my book. You’re not in a position to judge, that’s for sure. You’re basically the scum of the political process.
You’re right, it’s not hard to imagine he is honestly just worried about an attack. That’s why I think the police he spoke with should have stepped in, but then, I wasn’t there and I don’t really know if the cop had a real chance to do so.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:30 pmI know nothing about this case and don’t wish to; I’m not a Coloradan, so have no obligation to learn about it. 🙂
But it seems to me that the media regularly use alleged with respect to rape specifically, largely out of an (outmoded, old-fashioned) concern for the privacy of the alleged victim. Far better to tell the world that someone claims the victim was raped than to tell the world that the victim was raped.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:37 pm“BTW, what you did to P’s family is worse than the heated striking of this woman with a foot (which was wrong and stupid)”
Yeah i looked up that thread. Wasn’t me. I didn’t comment on there.
“But it seems to me that the media regularly use alleged with respect to rape specifically, largely out of an (outmoded, old-fashioned) concern for the privacy of the alleged victim”
Or maybe an outmoded, old fashioned concern for the perp.
imdw (70c00c) — 10/26/2010 @ 4:52 pmLiar. Notice how it waited until Patterico was gone to start back in with its dishonest sophistry. It has been banned and moderated, yet it persists.
JD (ae2c41) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:04 pmIf that is the case, I sincerely apologize, because indeed, the person who did that, which was said to be you, did something that was completely over the line.
You can understand, given your history, why I don’t believe you.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:11 pmValle, has some serious boundary issues, involved in vandalism of property, and other protests. but
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:38 pmProfft and Pazzano did go over the line
Dustin – The host was quite clear as to who it was in that thread. imdw is claiming that Patterico lied.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:40 pm“If that is the case, I sincerely apologize, because indeed, the person who did that, which was said to be you, did something that was completely over the line.”
It’s probably someone that uses the same proxy service I do. I once rhetorically used the fact that patterico was a prosecutor in an argument and was asked not to do that again. I wont.
imdw (35ef44) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:50 pm“If that is the case, I sincerely apologize, because indeed, the person who did that, which was said to be you, did something that was completely over the line.”
It’s probably someone that uses the same proxy service I do. I once rhetorically used the fact that patterico was a prosecutor in an argument and was asked not to do that again. And I won’t.
imdw (35ef44) — 10/26/2010 @ 5:51 pmWell, I call BS. The idea that imdw is claiming someone sockpuppeted him when he has repeatedly sockpuppeted to get around being banned is hysterical.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/26/2010 @ 6:21 pmSo…imdw is claiming that he didn’t carry out the act for which Patterico removed his comments?
I sure hope that is true, because if this person is lying about that, well, that is…well, not very smart.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 10/26/2010 @ 6:24 pm“Dustin – The host was quite clear as to who it was in that thread. imdw is claiming that Patterico lied.”
Or he could just be wrong.
“Well, I call BS. The idea that imdw is claiming someone sockpuppeted him when he has repeatedly sockpuppeted to get around being banned is hysterical.”
Did they use my handle?
imdw (c5488f) — 10/26/2010 @ 6:54 pmThis is rich. Patterico has called you out, repeatedly, when you used multiple names trying to get around your prior banning. Now, after the host is not around, you are calling him a liar.
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:01 pmimdw, I’m not going to entertain you on this. You don’t have a single handle, remember?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:04 pm“Now, after the host is not around, you are calling him a liar.”
You seem to have a hard time understanding this: “Or he could just be wrong.” Dealing with things you don’t get is not your forte, huh?
imdw (16090e) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:08 pm“Notice a pattern here? None of these organization are willing to say that this woman was raped. Not a single one. It’s always an allegation, a claim, etc. If there is one media outlet willing to say with certainty that she was raped, I have not found it.”
Um, I think there’s a really simple explanation. NO ONE HAD BEEN TRIED OR CONVICTED OF RAPE. In that circumstance, it would have been pretty irresponsible of said news organizations to describe it as a given fact, rather than anything more than it legally ever amounted to: an “allegation”.
Will (5e0476) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:20 pmDo you deny using multiple names to get around your prior ban?
JD (c8c1d2) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:24 pmI read recently (can’t find a link) that Buck had a female attorney (who was much more apt to see rape in the charge) interview the alleged victim, and she arrived at the same conclusion as Buck. There was more involved than the scenario mentioned in this article.
ken James (9d7ca5) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:38 pmI see it’s started to sink in.
imdw (14df54) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:42 pmKen James — the facts are that Buck was the head of the office. The case came in like any other case, and was reviewed by line prosectors who specialized in sex assault cases. I believe one of them was a female. The declined the case due to the evidentiary issues that are by now well known.
In an abundance of caution, Buck had two other supervisors review the decision — again, I believe one of them was a woman. Both those two supervisors agreed with the decision to decline the case.
Buck then met with the woman to explain the decision. It was from that meeting that she has taken matters public, and attempted to put all her complaints on Buck. The facts are that 4 experienced prosecutors all reviewed the case and all agreed that rape could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under the circumstances.
That is a pretty ordinary decision making process in the case of a “he said, she said” sexual assault claim.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 10/26/2010 @ 7:52 pmWho is Ken Gladney?
AD-RtR/OS! (3cdbf9) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:01 pmI can’t blame the guy for letting the woman know that sometimes the circumstances we get ourselves into mean that prosecution will go nowhere
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:04 pm> I do not have a hard time believing he’s a paranoid tea nut
To quote Kurt Cobain, “just because you’re paranoid, don’t mean they’re not after you.”
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/26/2010 @ 8:27 pmthis was what Republicorp, Valle’s meme was about
about;
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/26/new-moveon-ad-from-the-future-those-wingnuts-you-elected-in-2010-have-destroyed-everything/
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/27/2010 @ 5:42 am