PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Meh, just checking.
I really have no opinion in this matter (if it's even possible to actually have an opinion in it)

Of course it is possible. The pitfall is to take a position on the behaviour of Michael Shermer based on a third hand accusation. One is perforce limited to holding opinions on the behaviour that we can be sure about - that of PZ (Pustule Zit) Myers.

[Cormac]

Not, it's not comparable because the bullet doesn't decide to shoot people.

But, Yes, this was really stupid of him but that doesn't mean it wasn't true.

...and this is why mud sticks.

[Calilasseia]

As I posted elsewhere, this merely adds to the evidence that signing up to an assertion-laden doctrine flushes your critical thinking down the toilet. PZ has signed up to the A+ doctrine, and flushed his critical thinking down the toilet as a result. Worse still, he and his assorted raving fanboys, along with the A+ brigade, have become the atheist version of the Dominionists. "Conform or else". As a corollary of so doing, he's also handed a gold-plated gift to every duplicitous pedlar of supernaturalist apologetics, who wants to regurgitate yet more versions of the "atheism is a belief" bullshit, that many have been subjecting to the discoursive minigun for long enough. Thank you., PZ, for pissing on the hard work of a lot of other people, just so that you can masturbate your fucking ego and show off how big your Internet penis is. In the meantime, I'll look forward to Shermer's lawyers hacking it off with the legal equivalent of a chainsaw, and making you wear it stapled to your fucking face.

[Cormac]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/red-d ... 74082.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 46138.html


And yet, still all over the web today, people are still not clear that he was entirely innocent - nearly 20 years later.

He spent over three months in jail where he was severely assaulted, having already been mauled in the media.

False accusations do happen.

Famous people can sometimes be rapists.

The law tries to prevent false accusations from succeeding and tries to prevent rapists from getting away with it.


Myers has muddied the waters, and has, in fact, made it more difficult for a conviction to be secured
if there is any substance to his vague allegations.

And, if it is not true, the Shermer will never again be able to meet and talk to a woman* as an equal. It is appalling.


*or a man for that matter (Edit).

[pErvinalia]

Ok...
What if a friend of his came and told him this story. He believes it (be there evidence or not).
He gets frightened that Shermer might do this to other women and with his blog decides to warn them...
He is the good guy.

Yes, it would still be a stupid thing to do but it is still plausible.

It is possible and plausible. And for that reason, I'm not willing to definitively side with Sherman on this. PZ might really be doing what he thinks is morally right. He appears to be doing it in the most stupid way possible, but perhaps he's looked at (and tried?) all alternatives. The problem for PZ is he has a credibility problem in a lot of our eyes, so it's hard for us to believe that he is actually acting from a moral standpoint.

[pErvinalia]

She could certainly face charges of conspiracy to libel if the claim of rape proves false.

BRB Helicopter circling

Regarding the libel if the claim proves false.... I've been wondering about how this works. If it's been so long that she can't be allowed to prosecute him for rape, has it been too long to validate any claim of alleged rape? I don't know if the rules are different here or not, but you often see people come out and say "Priest Joe Bloggs raped me back in 1961" and nothing ever seems to come of it from either side. That is, it's so far back that neither rape nor libel can be proved.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

She could certainly face charges of conspiracy to libel if the claim of rape proves false.

BRB Helicopter circling

Regarding the libel if the claim proves false.... I've been wondering about how this works. If it's been so long that she can't be allowed to prosecute him for rape, has it been to long to validate any claim of alleged rape? I don't know if the rules are different here or not, but you often see people come out and say "Priest Joe Bloggs raped me back in 1961" and nothing ever seems to come of it from either side. That is, it's so far back that neither rape nor libel can be proved.

The (alleged) libel happened this week and is ongoing. The fact that it refers to an event that has passed its SOL is irrelevant.

[pErvinalia]

Thank you., PZ, for pissing on the hard work of a lot of other people, just so that you can masturbate your fucking ego and show off how big your Internet penis is. In the meantime, I'll look forward to Shermer's lawyers hacking it off with the legal equivalent of a chainsaw, and making you wear it stapled to your fucking face.

Quotable!

[pErvinalia]

She could certainly face charges of conspiracy to libel if the claim of rape proves false.

BRB Helicopter circling

Regarding the libel if the claim proves false.... I've been wondering about how this works. If it's been so long that she can't be allowed to prosecute him for rape, has it been to long to validate any claim of alleged rape? I don't know if the rules are different here or not, but you often see people come out and say "Priest Joe Bloggs raped me back in 1961" and nothing ever seems to come of it from either side. That is, it's so far back that neither rape nor libel can be proved.

The (alleged) libel happened this week and is ongoing. The fact that it refers to an event that has passed its SOL is irrelevant.

Yeah, but what I am wondering is how can she or PZ defend against libel, IF it was true. If it was too long ago that she couldn't legally prove in a court of law that Shermer raped her, then how can she use that same proof to defend against a libel claim?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

She could certainly face charges of conspiracy to libel if the claim of rape proves false.

BRB Helicopter circling

Regarding the libel if the claim proves false.... I've been wondering about how this works. If it's been so long that she can't be allowed to prosecute him for rape, has it been to long to validate any claim of alleged rape? I don't know if the rules are different here or not, but you often see people come out and say "Priest Joe Bloggs raped me back in 1961" and nothing ever seems to come of it from either side. That is, it's so far back that neither rape nor libel can be proved.

The (alleged) libel happened this week and is ongoing. The fact that it refers to an event that has passed its SOL is irrelevant.

Yeah, but what I am wondering is how can she or PZ defend against libel, IF it was true. If it was too long ago that she couldn't legally prove in a court of law that Shermer raped her, then how can she use that same proof to defend against a libel claim?

Probably in the same way that a civil case can award damages against OJ Simpson for a murder that he was not convicted of!

[Jason]

She can't. If there is no evidence, she has no defense besides claiming some sort of impairment of mental faculties. PZ could tenuously claim he was deceived, but I think the court will find that a weak excuse.

[pErvinalia]

She can't. If there is no evidence, she has no defense besides claiming some sort of impairment of mental faculties. PZ could tenuously claim he was deceived, but I think the court will find that a weak excuse.

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying if there IS evidence. But as XC said, there are different standards within the legal system, so that would appear to address the issue.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

She can't. If there is no evidence, she has no defense besides claiming some sort of impairment of mental faculties. PZ could tenuously claim he was deceived, but I think the court will find that a weak excuse.

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying if there IS evidence. But as XC said, there are different standards within the legal system, so that would appear to address the issue.

THere is no statute of limitations on evidence, only on crimes.

[Jason]

She can't. If there is no evidence, she has no defense besides claiming some sort of impairment of mental faculties. PZ could tenuously claim he was deceived, but I think the court will find that a weak excuse.

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying if there IS evidence. But as XC said, there are different standards within the legal system, so that would appear to address the issue.

If there was evidence then, but there is none now, she's still in the same boat. The courts don't care that she claims she had evidence. It has nothing to do with double standards in the legal system or some such. You either have evidence to support your claim when you make it or you have no evidence. It's one of the foundation stones of most modern judicial systems.

[Jason]

She can't. If there is no evidence, she has no defense besides claiming some sort of impairment of mental faculties. PZ could tenuously claim he was deceived, but I think the court will find that a weak excuse.

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying if there IS evidence. But as XC said, there are different standards within the legal system, so that would appear to address the issue.

THere is no statute of limitations on evidence, only on crimes.

Unless she had previously presented the evidence she has and her case was dismissed with prejudice (legal phrase). In which case she could not submit the same evidence in a new trial.

But she didn't do that, so there really was no point in my pointing that out.