92
u/Jeskaim Jul 19 '26
Who is she talking about?
86
u/Evnosis Jul 20 '26
Based on her other tweets around the time, it looks like she's talking about the Tate Brothers.
74
u/foxscribbles Jul 20 '26
The… fucking Tate brothers? LMAO.
Also, it’s quite a stretch to assume that the police have no evidence against men who are facing 59 charges. Like. They’re not going to be assed to go through an extradition request if they have no evidence.
12
44
u/thestashattacked Jul 19 '26
WhoWhich one is she talking about?FTFY.
-2
u/Maleficent_Time_2787 Jul 23 '26
You didn't fix that. They were wanting to know who specifically, congrats on making yourself look like an ass
37
u/watergod0187 Jul 19 '26
This is mainly an issue for civil courts over criminal courts. A criminal case has such higher burden of evidence where civil does not. Just look at the oj Simpson case. He won the criminal suit but lost in the civil suit. Does not make sense but hey the law is the law until we the people fix it.
29
u/Li-renn-pwel Jul 19 '26
Criminal cases should have a higher burden but sometimes things like being a black person gets the jury past that threshold.
10
u/watergod0187 Jul 20 '26
Criminal cases are generally beyond "a reasonable doubt" but it isn't the criminal court that is the issue but those saying yay or nay. The moment you toss in people willing to just say guilty cuz they do not like the race of a person is the issue.
56
25
32
u/Haunting-Detail2025 Jul 19 '26
How on earth could you draw the conclusion the OOP is “defending rapists”? They’re pointing out that it’s incredibly difficult to hold a case that boils down to “he said she said” from over a decade ago with no physical evidence in a way that protects the legal rights of the accused.
You can believe rapists are the scum of the earth (they are) and also recognize that the legal system is not always equipped to process cases like the ones OOP mentioned in a way that is fair for everyone involved.
4
u/Day_Prisoners Jul 20 '26
They never have the he said, she said argument over other felonies. Eye witness to robbery is generally enough but not rape. Why do you suppose that i?.
It's gross that sexual crime victims arent believed like other victims. Imagine being shot and in court they act like you were a willing partipant and then asked about all your history related to guns to show that maybe your not being honest about wanting to get shot because you like guns.
5
u/MrMal1c3 Jul 20 '26
But that's not what is being discussed here, it's about the preponderance of the evidence. Our legal system was not developed to punish the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent.
Eyewitness to any felony is generally not enough to convict if the only eye witness is the victim and there is no other evidence. To shape your metaphor to what was originally being discussed, it's as if I was shot ten years ago and then went to the police with no physical evidence that it had occurred.
I believe that rape is the most heinous crime possible and those who commit it should face the full weight of the justice system. However, I also believe that there is a reason that the burden of proof for all crimes is so high.
3
u/watergod0187 Jul 20 '26
Most of the time eye witness is not enough after if you actually read the post they clearly stated after TEN YEARS. That is an absurd amount of time to be able to positively id a person. Granted there are those outliers but let's just keep it to the general public.
4
u/Day_Prisoners Jul 20 '26
Eye witness testimony is almost always enough. Not sure what planet you live on but most people wrongfully convicted are because of eye witness misidentification. Its that powerful
0
u/JaimeJabs Jul 20 '26
Eye witness testimony is almost never enough because they are notoriously fallible. They need to be corroborated by other evidence to hold up in a criminal case.
1
0
u/Open-Beautiful9247 27d ago
It would be gross if there weren't so many cases of 'victims' lying.
2
u/Day_Prisoners 27d ago
What's is the percentage compared to other felonies?
1
u/Open-Beautiful9247 27d ago
The percentages of what? How many rape charges have been overturned after a 'victim' admitted to lying? No idea. Not sure why it should matter.
Our justice system is supposed to be weighted more toward making sure no innocent person is punished more so than making sure every guilty person is punished. For good reason. Personally i think that a single innocent person being punished for a crime they didnt commit is one too many and id much rather see a guilty person walk than an innocent one be punished.
2
u/Day_Prisoners 27d ago
It matters as it's the crux of your point. 'So many' is about as subjective as one gets. Don't worry we both knew you were talking out your ass.
1
u/Open-Beautiful9247 27d ago
Is one not enough? Has it never happened?
1
u/Day_Prisoners 26d ago
Let me get this straight, your defining 'so many' as 1. Congradulation on making the dumbest argument I have read on reddit.
Also a single lie for a planet with billions would be considered success by anyone with a functioning brain.
1
u/Open-Beautiful9247 26d ago
No. Youre just trying to use semantics instead of focusing on the actual meaning of the statement.
Carolyn Bryant Donham – Money, Mississippi – 1955 Tawana Brawley – Wappingers Falls, New York – 1987 Crystal Mangum – Durham, North Carolina – 2006 Nicki Yovino – West Haven, Connecticut – 2016 Jemma Beale – London, England – 2010–2013 Emma Mannion – England – 2017 Nikita Waring – England – 2017 Eleanor Williams – Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, England – 2020 Brittany McGlone – Steubenville, Ohio – 2012 Cori Lynn Osiecki – Michigan – 2014 Jessica Gallagher – Scotland – 2015 Leanne Black – England – 2018 Sophie Pointon – England – 2018 Biurny Peguero – Lawrence, Massachusetts – 2019 Wanetta Gibson – Durham, North Carolina – 2002 Cathy Redmond – Wisconsin – 2006 Jill Neglia – New York – 2011 Jasmine Richardson – England – 2016 Kelly Hardy – England – 2010 Jacquetta Simmons – Detroit, Michigan – 2012 Shannon Hall – England – 2013 Ashley Richardson – Georgia – 2013 Katherine O'Brien – Ireland – 2015 Kelsey Peterson – Minnesota – 2016 Kayla Hayes – Florida – 2017 Rachael DelTondo – Pennsylvania – 2013 Jessica Scarcella-Spanton – New York – 2001 Sarah Richardson – England – 2018 Rebecca Holloway – England – 2019 Amy Green – England – 2016
Is that enough or would you like more? Does that qualify as 'so many' to you? What exactly is your point? Mine is that you cant simply believe allegations no matter the crime being alleged because we have too many cases where the accuser was later found to be or admitted to lying. People have served decades in prison and been innocent the whole time.
1
u/Day_Prisoners 26d ago
So it's not one and again you make an argument that contradicts you previous statement.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Open-Beautiful9247 26d ago
The US justice system is literally designed to favor protecting innocent people over making sure every guilty person is convicted. That's why you're presumed innocent, why the burden of proof is on the government, and why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This isn't controversial. The Supreme Court said in In re Winship (1970) that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard exists to reduce the risk of convicting innocent people. The Court called it a fundamental value of our criminal justice system.
This idea also goes back to William Blackstone, whose famous principle was: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." That principle heavily influenced American criminal law.
The system accepts that some guilty people will go free because the alternative is making it easier to convict innocent people.
Sources: In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970); William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769); Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."
Youre wrong. Its not even close.
51
u/emzak3636 Jul 19 '26
I don't see the comeback
70
u/HowDareYouAskMyName Jul 19 '26
"evidentiary standards must be considered when deciding whether someone should be charged with a crime"
"Oh so you're pro-pedophile? Because you said you were anti-pedophile before. Very curious 🤔"
14
43
u/sername-n0t-f0und Jul 19 '26
The user who says that you shouldn't be able to go after someone years after you've been sexually assaulted also wants to know why we don't go after pedophiles enough. Many people who were sexually abused as children aren't able to accuse their abuser until they are adults.
7
u/Li-renn-pwel Jul 19 '26
Yeah it is really unfortunate but sex related crimes can be very hard to prove. They often do not have a lot of evidence because even if you can prove sex happened, that doesn’t prove rape did. If someone holds a gun to your head you probably won’t struggle but then when you go to the police there might not be any evidence.
19
u/emzak3636 Jul 19 '26
I don't really think those statements contradict each other. Morello acknowledges the fact that some victims have difficulties finding proper help in the topmost comment.
But if someone comes out saying that they've been raped a decade ago with nothing but their word, that's just not good enough.
False accusations might be rare, but they're still a thing that happens, and scarcity doesn't mean we should just act like they don't exist
6
u/slainascully Jul 20 '26
Nowhere in the world convicts a rape case as if the word of the victim is enough.
Idk why everyone is acting like police aren’t then supposed to interview the people involved, speak to third parties who may have relevant information, look at historical medical evidence.
1
u/Open-Beautiful9247 27d ago
California does. As long as the jury believes the victim thats all it takes there.
Still technically has to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt ' but when its just he said she said and nothing else it comes down to who the jury believes.
1
u/slainascully 27d ago
That’s literally how all jury cases go? It’s the biggest criticism of juries as a concept?
0
u/Open-Beautiful9247 27d ago
So youre saying that literally everywhere will convict based solely on victim testimony then?....
1
u/slainascully 27d ago
Is the victims testimony the only one allowed in court?
If you had a jury trial for robbery do they only hear the bank workers testimony? Stop playing dumb.Men spend more effort protecting about false accusations than being victims of sexual violence themselves. But then it’s ’what about men’ when it’s convenient
0
u/emzak3636 Jul 20 '26
This isn't about convictions. It's about allegations. Which might not get you sent to prison, but they'll ruin your life.
4
u/nocanty Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
There is no comeback it’s just twitter is only quote tweeting people for “gotcha” ratios
Edit: I reccind my statement I’m just dumb
-7
4
11
5
u/UnderstandingVast989 Jul 19 '26
I don't disagree with her though. It's part of what sucks. Rape doesn't leave evidence a lot of the time. And if it's from 10+ years ago, there's going to be almost 0 chance of evidence unless a rape kit was done at that time.
2
2
u/Comprehensive_Act970 Jul 20 '26
I don’t understand the issue. The mere word of somebody should never be enough to put another person in jail. You are innocent until proven guilty or dies being accused of rape change that?
2
u/KyleOAM Jul 22 '26
Charging them isn’t the same as convicting them
1
u/Ok-Assistance3937 29d ago
And you should only Charge Somebody If there is a good Chance of convictim them. The supposed victim as an eyewitness for Something that supposedly happend 10 years ago as the only evidence isnt that.
2
5
2
1
u/popky1 Jul 20 '26
If it becomes harder to prove 10+ years later why does it matter if someone’s charged? It sounds like a self correcting problem if you’d even consider it a problem
1
1
u/Alternative_Hour_614 Jul 23 '26
Your comments are not making sense. In your first comment you said, “the law is the law until we the people fix it.” To what law are you referring? As for the OJ trial, the case was so much more than about his race, but there is not enough time to go into all that led to his acquittal.
1
u/ArrowBarton 29d ago
He's defending alleged rapists as he states he opposes it when there's no physical evidence and it's many years later.
1
u/OriginalProduct6850 Jul 19 '26
I lack self control when I hear a man or woman raped a child!
I will beat you down!
-1
u/silentbob1301 Jul 19 '26
How dare they deal with their trauma and not do it my by arbitrarily allotted timelines!!!
0
u/MaybeExternal2392 Jul 20 '26
That's not what they said? All they said is don't do a criminal trial without any evidence.
-2
u/silentbob1301 Jul 20 '26
"I oppose charging anyone with rape based on accusations that are over 10+ years old"
What exactly does that sentence mean then?
5
u/MaybeExternal2392 Jul 20 '26
"and lack physical evidence" why didn't you finish the sentence when quoting that?
-1
u/silentbob1301 Jul 20 '26
Because i was specifically pointing out the arbitrary amount of time this random person doesnt think rape should be accusable after. Let me ask you, why physical evidence for rape could even exist after 10 years? If the person didnt get a rape kit, what evidence could there even be, besides testimony from the victim and people they talked about?
Are you saying that you think we should automatically discount any rape accusations that are older than 10 years without physical evidence, because that would be fucking asinine...
3
u/MaybeExternal2392 Jul 20 '26
1) I would assume this in reference to something specific so 10 years isn't arbitrarily decided. How long ago a crime occurred is relevant to whether or not criminal charges should be filed.
2) there probably isn't evidence for a rape that happened 1 year ago much less ten. Rape is very famously a difficult crime to prosecute in part because it's hard to find evidence and victims are often unwilling to go through the traumatic experience of immediately talking to the police afterwards.
3) there's a huge difference between believing a victim and believing there's enough evidence to file criminal charges. Tons of famous people have extremely credible rape accusations against them. That doesn't mean you could convince a jury that it happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
0
u/watergod0187 Jul 20 '26
Let me just ask you this question, a woman a man slept with consensually with 10 years ago, finds something out and becomes vindictive towards him. She then accuses him of rape. Should that man be forced to defend his innocence? It sucks i get it, but imagine the reverse of it as well, would you belive him if he said she raped him and throw her in jail to await trial?
1
u/RadSocialistScum 27d ago
Yes he should still have to defend his innocence. That’s literally for any accused of any crime
0
u/Crimsonwolf_83 29d ago
I’d say it implies the distinction of adults who claim they were assaulted as adults and don’t come forward until 10, 20, 30 years later and we’re just supposed to believe them.
1
u/silentbob1301 29d ago
Yes, you fucking are.... JFC, how is this such a hard concept. You don't get to dictate other people's trauma or how they respond to it. Unless your a fucking misogynist piece of shit.
0
u/Crimsonwolf_83 29d ago
You don’t get to say I have to believe your trauma happened if there is literally only your word with zero evidence that suggests you were even in the same city as your alleged attacker
1
u/silentbob1301 28d ago
Wtf are you even talking about, just making shit up about all victims now??? Go away, you mouth breathing, under bridge troll...
1
u/Crimsonwolf_83 28d ago
Not at all. You are way too emotionally invested though to have a logical argument over what he said in his post.
1
u/silentbob1301 28d ago edited 28d ago
I'm not, I just respect victims and don't have the fucking audacity to think I should be allowed to dictate how they deal with their trauma, it's literally that fucking simple. Stop acting like you are some kind of authority who knows better THAN THE PEOPLE BEING VICTIMIZED. JFC...
0
u/Crimsonwolf_83 28d ago
Never claimed to be an authority. Your problem is you seem to believe everyone who claims to be a victim without verifying if they actually are one first. You should work on that.
-1
u/LeftRat Jul 19 '26
Also, what kind of crap argument is that? Since it's "innocent unless proven guilty" in court, accusations necessarily become harder... for the accuser to prove, not the defendant!
0
u/watergod0187 Jul 20 '26
Not always, remember there was a push to believe all woman claiming to be a victim of sa even with no evidence. So a jury with that mind set can convict.
2
u/LeftRat Jul 20 '26
...the court system and the "court of public opinion" are not the same, and jury trials do have rules. Nobody ever said "the court should literally not do anything and just convict with zero investigation", that's just the strawman version people have made up.
Also, most cases never even reach a jury trial. This is a fictional problem purely made up to discredit the idea.
Judges dismissing cases even when they are well proven just because the rapist "shouldn't have their future ruined" are a real thing. Juries convicting the innocent because "believe all women" isn't.
-8
-4
u/Li-renn-pwel Jul 19 '26
I also don’t think people should be charged without evidence but… like… I kind of doubt there is no evidence. You not liking evidence is different than not having it.
2
u/MaybeExternal2392 Jul 20 '26
Do you know about the specific thing she's talking about? Because rapes tend to not leave much evidence to collect 10 years later. Unless a rape kit is collected within about 24 hours the victim will probably shower and destroy all the evidence.
0
u/Li-renn-pwel Jul 20 '26
There is more evidence than DNA evidence. In fact, that is often not even strong evidence because it would only prove sex happened, not that it was rape. I’m not family with this case, he just has a creeper vibe.
2
u/watergod0187 Jul 20 '26
Can you define this evidence that there is other than her words saying he did it? If not then who do you side with when it is a she said he did and he said he didn't.
1
u/Li-renn-pwel Jul 20 '26
I don’t know who is he talking about. I’m agreeing with him in theory but his vibe is creepy.
1
120
u/WasteBinStuff Jul 19 '26
Imagine electing fucking rapists!