Skip to main content

View Diary: Guess why the Army's top sexual assault prosecutor's been suspended (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the advice, counselor. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl, JuliathePoet

    The prudent course would be to remain neutral if this were a court or law, or if I had any responsible role in the case.

    Since I don't and I am just basically typing my thoughts on a website (as you are), I am uninhibited by such proscriptions.

    Here's my thought process: I AM assuming she's telling the truth.

    They're both lawyers. They both know what a headache this is going to be. She is going to be castigated as a slut and she knew that going into it, and yet she still sought to file charges.

    There is no good outcome for her. Even if she wins the case, she'll be ostracized and outcast within the military. This case will follow her and be attached to her every professional interaction. The only motive I can assume would drive her to do this is striving for a some version of justice.

    If you want me to not assume she's telling the truth, put forth a reasonable possible motive for lying.

    It might still be considered prudent to share your non-neutral thoughts here - it's just an anonymous internet comment. It won't result in a mistrial.

    "You don't have to be smart to laugh at fart jokes, but you have to be stupid not to." - Louis CK

    by New Jersey Boy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:58:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  no one has (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      New Jersey Boy

      "castigated her as a slut." every conversation I've had with other JAGs on this issue is the exact neutral approach I've identified...let the process find out the facts first.

      If you want to assume based on facts, that would be logical, that you assume based on no facts is not logical, inside or outside a court of law.

      I want you to NOT assume anything one way or the other, but clearly you aren't willing to do that.  I don't have any "non-neutral" thoughts because:

      1. I don't know the facts of the allegations
      2. I don't know her at all (although I might if it is who I think it might be--although even then, I wouldn't know her enough to fairly judge her credibility).
      3. I know him, and his reputation-which is stellar, but not personally enough to know what he is or is not capable of since reputation does not always equal reality.

      As the facts are revealed THEN I may make some assumptions that are "non-neutral" one way or the other, but the only fact now is a bare accusation.

      There is no positive outcome for him either, even if acquitted his career is seriously damaged.  He isn't going to be a judge more likely than not, and he probably wouldn't be promoted.

      I don't assume motives, I wait for evidence first.  Any logical person would.

      •  You hold yourself to a higher standard than I do. (0+ / 0-)

        And, it's a higher standard than most expect on an internet forum.

        You're going to be frustrated if you enter a diary like this where everyone is commenting on the limited facts that are known. We're all making assumptions without all the facts. We're talking. That's all.

        But that's what this is. It's different from "every conversation you've had with other JAGs in this issue." Where the rules are naturally different.

        Joining a discussion like this to advise prudence and neutrality is also not logical.

        This isn't a court of law. It's a blog.

        "You don't have to be smart to laugh at fart jokes, but you have to be stupid not to." - Louis CK

        by New Jersey Boy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:23:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site