Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

You have no idea what my position on sexual battery/rape is, neither do I know what yours is either.

Nope, you're correct. However, even without using FORCE, it's STILL sexual battery. I've even provided a link to Florida's laws stating exactly what constituted sexual battery. You still seem to be avoid calling this specific incident SB/R. Why is that?

That's because different definitions of the two have become conflated in this discussion.

Nope, it's pretty simple.

Here's what FL SS calls it.

(h) “Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.


Does this help you understand that what W9 claims occurred, is absolutely SB? If not, please, ask for help understanding.

I was unaware she had included 'force' in her description, if so that also makes her unwillingness to use the words 'I'll tell Mommy and Daddy' stranger, as that's what kids generally do when forced to do things they don't want to by other kids subject to the same authority.

Why? Do you not understand the fear and shame that a victim goes through? Did you not read my post above? I spent 25 years hiding the fact that I had been abused. I was married almost 4 years before I told ANYONE, including my wife!

So, the fact that she didn't tell, doesn't surprise me in the least.

That's what I'm getting at by wondering if it might be best to just let this particular facet of case die, it starts to implicate other people she might not want to see become involved.

Oh, so it's ok to let a victim continue to live in a life of fear, just to protect someone? Wow, you're really not understanding child abuse, are you?

Do you think it is likely to happen, and if not, why?

I honestly don't know. I would LOVE to see it, but I don't know if that will happen.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I told you about 5 times a good reason why.

Also, I believe the highlighted is very telling.

I don't recall seeing any good reasons why.

Nor have you explained why those same types of reasons don't work for why they wouldn't say anything if she was lying, either.

So, in summary, the victims parents might not have said anything because they didn't want to, or for some other random reason. None of which provides evidence for or against whether her story is true or not.

Which is, again, why there is no point in discussing this alleged incident until we have some additional information.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So Unabogie asking if it is a violation to have a dummy account = a claim that GZ will be violating his bond because his father has an account??

Seriously??

So Unabogie was 'just asking questions' ?

What is a dummy account , anyway ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The words of the victim herself would be pretty good evidence.
...

Unless the victim is George Zimmerman.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Certain posters want to highlight the fact that Z has not been convicted for the molestation, and because of that we should completely ignore the claims.

Quotes, evidence ? Looks like another strawman to me.

Please, it should be really easy to quote someone saying we should ignore the claims, because he has not been convicted.

...
So is blaming the family for not wanting to discuss it against the victims wishes.

I hilited the part you pulled out of your nether regions.

 

[Kaosium]

There are thousands of cases of child abuse every year. I'm a firm believer in "better 9 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted" but not every child is lying about their abuse. Prosecutors deal with that sort of thing all the time. They do the best they can with what they have available, sometimes things go horribly wrong.

Just remember they were both children at the time. I got beat up sometimes by other kids in the neighborhood, humiliated and injured at times. I'd run into them later in life and they turned out fine; I don't see the need to try to destroy their lives or dwell on it. They were children too, and what they did then should not destroy their lives. We need to keep that in mind, there's no comparison between this (even if absolutely true) and an adult authority figure sexually abusing someone. None.

 

[Moss]

Unless the victim is George Zimmerman.

Well, W9 is not charged with crime that she may have a motive to evade via accusations against another party. Or did I miss that part?

 

[Kaosium]

Nope, you're correct. However, even without using FORCE, it's STILL sexual battery. I've even provided a link to Florida's laws stating exactly what constituted sexual battery. You still seem to be avoid calling this specific incident SB/R. Why is that?

The fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Kaosium]

Um no, but I think society might be best served to put "sexually assaulting cousins" in jail . To clarify, I have no idea whether these allegations are true, but your statement above is a silly strawman.

As for you, reductio ad absurdum.

That's one way you might explain why there's never been a case like this prosecuted.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...0727_1_murder-defendant-sims-george-zimmerman

Shellie Zimmerman says she's not guilty of perjury.

Her new attorney, Kelly B. Sims, filed paperwork Friday entering that plea on her behalf

 

[triforcharity]

Unless the victim is George Zimmerman.

If there are as many inconsistencies in W9's testimony as GZ's.....

 

[triforcharity]

Just remember they were both children at the time. I got beat up sometimes by other kids in the neighborhood, humiliated and injured at times. I'd run into them later in life and they turned out fine; I don't see the need to try to destroy their lives or dwell on it.
They were children too, and what they did then should not destroy their lives.

Wow, are you actually trying to equate getting beat up with being molested for years throughout your childhood? Please tell me you're drunk...

We need to keep that in mind, there's no comparison between this (even if absolutely true) and an adult authority figure sexually abusing someone. None.

Um, yes, there most certainly is. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, no matter who the abuser is.

I'll ask you again. You've never been sexually abused have you?
Have you ever even read about victims of sexual abuse and the struggles that they go through?

Please, educate yourself, because it's CLEARLY obvious that you're absolutely uneducated about it.

 

[triforcharity]

That's one way you might explain why there's never been a case like this prosecuted.

Wrong.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/03/christopher_brown_accused_in_s.php

Guy accused of sexually assaulting his cousin, who is also his ex GF. 18 and 17.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8186140

(Now, a 5 year difference, but a cousin being charged with sexually assaulting his cousin, and they're both kids)

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/affidavit-las-cruces-teen-accused-sexual-relations/nPk9J/

Here's one where a 14 year old played "vampire" for several years with a family member who is 13.


Now, wanna keep running your mouth?

I don't expect that you'll actually acknowledge these, but everyone else will know that you're wrong.

 

[triforcharity]

The fallacy of equivocation.

So, which one is it? Do you have a problem with calling the definition of sexual battery? It seems pretty simple. Someone who's forced another person, against their will, to engage in sexual activity, can be charged with sexual battery. How is that a logical fallacy?

Seems pretty simple sir.

Diddle your cousin, against her will, and I will call it sexual battery, 100% of the time.

You're welcome to explain what I got wrong in the definition of sexual battery, but you'd be showing your continued ignorance.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't expect that you'll actually acknowledge these, but everyone else will know that you're wrong.

'Frankly Trifor, I could give a damn.'

However some might realize those cases have little to do with what happened under the laws of Florida years ago and weren't reported until many years later. Here's another one for you: The Fallacy of Composition.

Peace out

 

[Dancing David]

Then perhaps you shouldn't have. Take a look at what it is. It is a case of cousins touching that many years later she decided amounted to 'abuse.'

And where did the continuing consent get given, what starts as young children can become sexual abuse.

You are minimizing much if what happens in family sexual abuse cases.

 

[Dancing David]

It's called 'innocent until proven guilty'--look into it. It prevents premature 'outrage' and allows one to think rationally when emotive charges are made.

And the words of the alleged victim are still evidence, so your point is sophistry.

 

[Dancing David]

And where did I make ANY claim that GZ is not innocent until proven guilty? I'd personally would LOVE to see a prosecutor bring formal charges against GZ for raping his cousin. We'd then have a nice little trial, and he could be put in prison if he is convicted. I'd most likely drive to Sanford to watch it too.

Yup Kaosium has a history of false flag attacks to minimize the effects of alleged criminal acts in this thread.

 

[triforcharity]

'Frankly Trifor, I could give a damn.'

Could or couldn't?

However some might realize those cases have little to do with what happened under the laws of Florida years ago and weren't reported until many years later. Here's another one for you: The Fallacy of Composition.

Peace out

Shifting the goalposts logical fallacy.

You said NO crime SIMILAR to this are prosecuted. I showed 2, with a possible 3rd, all prosecuted. Now you want it under Florida law, with years of abuse, and a long time lapse. Gotcha. Do you know what logical fallacy that is?

Now, go ahead and keep dodging, and I will continue to show that you're avoiding answering a single question.

Do I need to list them for you to make it easier to answer?

 

[johnny karate]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...0727_1_murder-defendant-sims-george-zimmerman

Shellie Zimmerman says she's not guilty of perjury.

Aww... that's adorable.