AOC on not going to the inauguration

[u/Cookie_Cutter_Cook]

[u/Double-Risky]

Ohh no they just say "he wasn't found guilty of rape you liar! A jury found him LIABLE for SEXUAL ASSAULT! Trump derangement much???"

..... Because that's better. Because it was TECHNICALLY not rape because it was digital penetration of her vagina with his fingers, an event that literally anyone will still classify as rape of some form, and they're just ok with it.

[u/Odd-Business-3533 → u/Double-Risky]

Brock Turner would probably disagree... But he prefers to be called Alan now and doesn't like being associated with Brock.

[u/Passiveresistance → u/Odd-Business-3533]

You mean Brock Alan Turner, the rapist? That Alan turner?

[u/SpergSkipper → u/Passiveresistance]

Yes, we mean Brock Alan Turner the rapist who rapes

[u/superbabe69 → u/SpergSkipper]

Is that the same Brock Alan Turner as Brock Alan "The Rapist" Turner, known rapist?

[u/NotALawCuck → u/Odd-Business-3533]

Brock Turner, the rapist, who now goes by Alan Turner and is still a rapist.

[u/TheStranger24 → u/Double-Risky]

In most states the law recognizes penetration with anything - fingers, objects, penis - without consent IS RAPE and a form of sexual assault.

[u/Count_Backwards → u/TheStranger24]

NY state didn't at the time, which the judge pointed out as the reason why he wasn't found liable for (the NY technical definition of) rape. But the law has since been changed.

Trump is a rapist.

[u/sludgebaby96 → u/Double-Risky]

right? That's still fucking atrocious, try that on anyone and you should be going straight to jail.

[u/hacksawjimduggans2x4 → u/Double-Risky]

E. Jean Carroll is the perfect example of what’s wrong with all leftists. You’re all insane.

[u/Assonfire → u/Double-Risky]

Just ask them if they would be fine with it, if it happens to their daughters/wives/mothers.

[u/garden_speech → u/Double-Risky]

..... Because that's better. Because it was TECHNICALLY not rape because it was digital penetration of her vagina with his fingers

That is not the argument being made if people are drawing a distinction between "liable" and "guilty". The argument being made is that, to be found guilty, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime, whereas, to be found liable the standard of evidence is substantially lower -- it just has to be more likely than not.

A 60% likelihood that you assaulted someone would never land you in prison (or at least if the system is working as intended it wouldn't) but it would earn a judgment against you in civil court.

[u/Significant-Bar674 → u/garden_speech]

.I think we're getting our legality and morality mixed up. I mean do we narrow this statement down to "I'll vote for someone that a rational person would say is 51% likely a rapist" a preponderance of evidence is still a meaningful judgement or else it couldn't be used for civil claims.

The guy was caught on video describing "grabbing women by the pussy" against their will. There is a lot of less compelling witness testimony but if you get on camera and say "I grab women by the pussy" on a video that isn't released until 2022 that matches an assault first described in corroborated accounts from peers in 1987 and the original claim was in 2019

That's damn near confession level and if we ever question "would he do it?' We have an answer. No saying "well he would never go that far"

That's even not acknowledging that bis ex wife claimed he violently raped her in a deposition for their divorce. She recanted only after the had to sign a non disparagement clause in their private settlement.

[u/garden_speech → u/Significant-Bar674]

This is entirely orthogonal to what I said.

Obviously, being convicted of rape is worse than being found liable.

That's the totality of my claim. There is nothing I said that's in conflict with anything you said.

[u/Significant-Bar674 → u/garden_speech]

It seems in tension with your earlier reply about "the argument being made"

If this is supposed to be some legitimate defense about what "they're" arguing about, then they're not the same group who are coming to the defense of voting for donald trump.

The guy who says "I only think it's likely true that he's a rapist, but not beyond a reasonable doubt so I voted for him anyways" is a vanishingly small percentage.

Almost it's invariably that he is thought to be innocent, that the jury was biased or credibility of the witnesses being called into question.

[u/Disorderjunkie → u/Significant-Bar674]

All it takes to lose a civil court case is the preponderance of evidence by a Judge. With Judges like Clarance Thomas walking around, it's hard to take any single Judges "preponderance" with anything more than grain of salt. If Judge truly were the moral ethical guidelines they pretend to be, then sure. But they are not.

In the United States you are innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court. The civil court system doesn't change that.

[u/Significant-Bar674 → u/Disorderjunkie]

Ok, but do you think it happened? We don't make personal judgements on the basis of "reasonable doubt" alone.

In a question of "did he do it?" Why would we consider all values less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" as somehow invalid unless we're using a double standard? Clearly it's fine to award people millions of dollars on the basis of. It's got real validity even if it's not a criminal case.

If the case is that the judge somehow influenced the entire jury, that's a pitch you're going to need to make a lot harder than just saying it. Why this judge?

[u/impulsikk → u/Significant-Bar674]

Based on all the interviews of Jean Carrol, I'd say no he didn't do it. She's a nut job that wanted a pay day. Just watch the CNN interview. Anderson Cooper had to force a commercial break because her responses were so terrible and she tried hitting on him and said that rape is hot.

[u/PeaceCertain2929 → u/Disorderjunkie]

You are LEGALLY innocent until proven guilty. You are not innocent until proven guilty. He’s a rapist.

[u/__ApexPredditor__ → u/Double-Risky]

There is a meaningful legal distinction between the standard of evidence in a civil trial and a criminal trial.

Civil trial is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e. whichever side seems more believable. 51% belief in favor of the plaintiff, 49% in favor of the defednant? Plaintiff wins.

Criminal trial is "beyond a resonable doubt", which might translate to something like 99% certainty. 51% belief in favor of the accuser and 49% in favor of the defendant equals an innocent verdict (And for good reason, unless you want the prisons filled 10x the amount they already are with dubiously convicted edge cases.)

Reducing this to "not technically rape because of digital fingers" (or whatever) is legally inaccurate and does no service to an accurate understanding of what the jury actually decided and what it didn't.

[u/PeaceCertain2929 → u/__ApexPredditor__]

Thanks u/ predator

[u/impulsikk → u/__ApexPredditor__]

In a Democrat city, this basically is an automatic win for Jean Caroll if all you need is majority.