Tucker Carlson, who I am no fan of, is being accused of victim blaming

Referring to the attention that Blasey’s allegation has received ― including Sen. Mazie Hirono’s message that the men in this country should “just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change” ― Carlson said that victims of sexual abuse should rely on due process and avoid having “trial by CNN.”

“It’s pretty straightforward. If you believe a crime has been committed against you, you report it,” he said. “Go to the police. It’s not always easy, obviously, but it’s still your obligation as a citizen, not least to protect the rest of us from whomever you believe did it.”
http://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-blames-sexual-assault-034939642.html

as an assault survivor, I feel he makes a good point. I dont know that I would stretch it to being an 'obligation as a citizen', however I do believe the justice system can only act when it is given the REASON and the information to act upon. And with consensual and alternate sex being within the individual's rights to engage in, it is difficult to prove things like the presence or absence of such consent, what constituted consent, or what we can assume someone may or may not have consented to.

These things are difficult to prove when it is reported quickly, let alone when it is left for years or decades.

I dont think this woman was seeking justice on a teen TRYING to 'get some', especially since there was drinking involved and the attempt is not detailed much beyond that, and it happened decades ago. I think she just wanted the character of a potential SCOTUS to be investigated more deeply.


In any case, I agree that reporting these things is important to try to prevent it from happening to others, but I understand why it is pointless in many cases to do so without clearer evidence of an actual 'crime'.


Is it an 'obligation' to report crime? Is it understandable if one does not believe it can be proven or that it will cause danger to themselves, to leave the battle for another day?

Realtivity

I believe that is relative to the conditions of the crime.
Its relative to the outcome of the actions taken.
Its relative to the severity of the crime.

I offer an example...

Man gets shot and killed.
He is the victim of another person taking his life.

The man that is the victim was walking his dog, on a public street and never said or did anything to the man that took his life.

On the other hand, the man that is the victim lying dead, stabbed your mother. You shot him to prevent him from killing her.
The victim, that is now dead, is to blame for the conditions which caused his death.

A child steals your candy bar. You are the victim of theft. You accept the loss of the candy bar and take precautions not to leave your candy bars in reach of the child.

You steal a candybar from Walmart. Walmart, the victim, calls the police. You pay hundreds of dollars in fines and spend time in jail and now have a shoplifting record. You consider yourself the victim but you are actually to blame for stealing the candy bar in the first place.

That was a given from the start. A college professor from California. The liberals out there are free ranging, and are not afraid to go after conservatives.

I watch Tucker Carlson. What he wants on his program, is for guests to answer his questions. Seams to be very hard for dems to do that. He asks, then they go rambling off on another direction. But, Tucker is persistent. He managed to get that doddering old fool, Jesse Jackson on one night. I knew that was going to be a disaster, and it was. Tucker finally cut the interview off, because Jackson was giving a sermon.

If that was the only political program I ever watched, my assumption would be that no democrat, ever listens.

The alleged "victim" has the burden of proving that the accused is guilty.
That is all that should be said.

I saw that segment of Tucker Carlson, whom I am a fan of, but the senator basically said that the victim shouldn't have to face the person she has accused. Tucker said " in this country your innocent until proven guilty" and you shouldn't be able to level charges with such cloudy allegations and no evidence to substantiate your claim and not be questioned. Some on the left have convicted him already including that old white woman on the view. Joy Blohard.

I know it was a long OP, but the questions being posed were

Is it an 'obligation' to report crime? Is it understandable if one does not believe it can be proven or that it will cause danger to themselves, to leave the battle for another day?

The one issue I have is with Diane Feinstein. If she had this letter two months ago why did she wait until just before the vote?

It is wrong for an alleged victim to decline to report an alleged crime and then use the alleged crime for political purposes 36 years later.

This is similar to when Judge Clarence Thomas was being voted on for the Supreme Court. Anita Hill was brought out at the last minute to stop him.

Another one is Judge Roy Moore. After the election his case has fallen by the wayside.

All political grandstanding.

I dont know that it rose to the level of a crime though. High schoolers trying to get lucky is not gonna be at the top of the list for police. If actual rape had occurred ... maybe.

And I do think the reason it was raised is because the position of SCOTUS is so important and character is so paramount in such a position. IT seemed like an FYI to look further into the character of the candidate and not any attempt to do much more since anonymity was requested and the only reason it seems to have entered into an investigation is because a news source LEAKED it had been received by Feinstein.

There was not a crime, but there was judgment that may come into question if it has continued, which may give pause to assigning that person such a position. And then again, it may be a stupid thing some stupid teen did that does not in any way reflect the character they went on to have.

Since a crime wasn't commited, I think he has good judgment and character. There doesn't appear to be anything to investigate. Just democrats trying to delay the vote. In my opinion it shows bad character on the woman's part and the people who are making a big deal out of nothing.

let something like that which he is accused of happen to your daughter, mother, another close family member or friend, or YOU, and i seriously doubt you'd continue to share that opinion.




is he guilty of the accusation? at this point, who knows.
if he is, at this point in his life and after all the changes he's made from that behavior, should that alone disqualify him from the job he seeks now?
maybe not?

...unless he's found to have been lying about the alledged incident. then probably not.

i guess we'll see.

are the republicans handling this nomination process appropriately?
of course not.

no shock there. it's not like they've been exibiting the highest levels of propriety, and sloughing of the hypocrisy they're so famous for.
that WOULD be shocking.

Dub, this type of thing has happened to me and family members. It's worthy of her slapping his face. Like I've done in the past.
I think these accusations are getting out of control. This is nothing more than dirty politics on the democrats part. I'm sure they just lost more votes because they aren't focused on the issues.

you don't know that. why would you make such an assertion?

How many years has it been since this crime wasn't commited? The democrats just lost votes from a lot of men whose only crime was not calling the woman the next day.

In this case, because criminal charges are not even being sought, the time passage is not significant.

What will or should be significant is that the SCOTUS CANDIDATE, a position of extreme authority over the application of justice in the land that is appointed for their ENTIRE LIFETIME, is not of a character that reflects a disregard for justice or a character which may reflect disdain, bigotry, or apathy towards others. It may be nothing, it may open floodgates that reveal an alleged and ongoing trend (like with Cosby, who was only an entertainer and not even a candidate for such a position of authority)

She may be the first and last, or she may not be the first, but the position of SCOTUS has and should involve transparency and scrutiny. So if there is nothing to hide, nothing will come of it. But if this lady was traumatized somehow when she was younger, she is not wrong, upon finding out the assailant may attain such power over the lives of other women, to speak up out of caution.

Cosby was drugging and raping women. That's a crime. All I've heard about this case is he was a horny teenager who grabbed a boob. When she didn't go for it, he stopped. Liberals are blowing it out of proportion.

Which people believed because of the NUMBER of women who claimed rape happened, which had to start with ONE.

Two things:
No, it's NOT an obligation to report a crime. Neither a legal one, or a moral one, according to all the philosophies that I am aware of. Not even one, says that it is.

Next, since this fellows goal in complaining that the bad acts were NOT reported at the time, means that they might as well have not occurred, his reasoning is even more nonsensical.

Bottom line for all the current to-do, is that according to the Republican Party that impeached Clinton in 1998, regardless of what may or may not have been proven happened in the deeper past, if someone lies about it in the present, it is an impeachable offense.

And that Republican Party, with much of the same membership as now, is still running th country, and still insists that it was right in 1998 and beyond, to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate even a HINT of wrongdoing by those in high office, and then prosecute them both for those wrongs, AND for denying having committed them, to the fullest extent of the law.

Either they need to admit that their philosophy about the law ONLY applies to opponents, or they need to do the same with current accused Republicans, as they have done with several well known Democrats.