Contact
Subscribe


Wanted: Less Honesty, More Sensitivity, In The United States Senate

Oct 17, 2010
By .
Law, Politics & Current Events

Weld County, Colorado District Attorney Ken Buck is drawing fire for his insensitivity in refusing to prosecute a man who probably didn't commit a crime:

When Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago, he probably had no idea that anyone beyond a small circle of people would care. …

The victim, a Weld County rape awareness advocate, admitted she invited her ex-boyfriend over, and admitted that she got drunk with him, and admitted that they had sex, which she was unwelcome as she, in her stumbling drunkenness, as she passed in and out of consciousness during the act, said she said "No" to.

In explaining why he wouldn't prosecute the case to the victim, Buck, who's now running for U.S. Senate against Michael Bennet, the man who did more than any other to destroy the Denver Public Schools, explained that a Weld County jury, charged with finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would likely conclude that this was a case of "Buyer's Remorse."  Meaning that she invited her ex over, they had sex, and she felt bad about it in the morning.  So, being a rape victims' advocate, she called the police to arrange a vindictive prosecution, which, being a rape victims' advocate, she knew can be easily arranged.

A frank expression of the case.   The complaint against Buck is that he was honest.  That's precisely what a conscientious jury would conclude, by a reasonable doubt, might have happened.

Buck may be honest, but he's a troglodyte.  We can't have Senators who are honest about their beliefs.  It's wrong to say such a thing to a woman, even one who knows better than most how the law works.  To tell a woman, whose work revolves around rape, that yes, you may have been stupid to invite your ex-boyfriend, with whom you'd had a sexual relationship, over to your home, then to get so drunk with him that you kept passing in and out of consciousness.  That maybe you should have known better, and maybe, horrid as it seems, even if you're telling the truth, a jury might not buy your story.  (That maybe, and here goes my political career, she should have taken some personal responsibility before opening that second bottle of wine.)

Assuming, of course, that she was telling the truth, and that it wasn't a case of buyer's remorse.  Which is the first thing that pops into MY troglodyte mind when I read this story.

I'll go further, and alienate 99% of our readers:  A woman who invites her ex-boyfriend over to her house, gets him drunk, and gets herself drunk, at night and alone, is asking for it. Especially if she's a rape awareness advocate, who has to know that this is exactly how date rape happens and why it's so damned difficult to prosecute.

Assuming, of course, that it wasn't buyer's remorse.  Only she and the ex know.  Which is precisely what a jury, charged with finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would have concluded in finding the ex not guilty.

And so the rap against Buck is, not that he did his job commendably, refusing to carry a rape prosecution which was a sure loser all the way to the end to burnish his credentials as tough on crime and for political gain. It's that he was frank, and honest.  Or insensitive, which is the way honesty is condemned by scoundrels.

God forbid we have frank, honest people in the Senate, who call it as they see it.  Better that we continue with a legislature that does what's popular, and tells us what we want to hear.  That's what's made America the greatest country in the world, and will keep it the greatest country in the world as we embark on our second American Century.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White

17 Comments
Tags ,

17 Comments

  1. Jason!  •  Oct 17, 2010 @11:54 am

    I'll ask the opposite question: What kind of dude, knowing his ex is a rape awareness advocate, goes over to her house and drinks and has sex with her (under whatever conditions); allowing himself to be put in even a barely prosecutable position? That's just damned stupid.

    Sorry, just probably alienated the rest of your readers.

  2. John David Galt  •  Oct 17, 2010 @12:53 pm

    You mean, he actually presumed that an accused person was innocent? That's almost… well… American!

  3. Mike  •  Oct 17, 2010 @1:58 pm

    True enough, Jason. The two most illogical force in the universe are a man's cock and a woman's feelings. A sensible person heeds neither.

  4. SPQR  •  Oct 17, 2010 @2:45 pm

    The attacks upon Ken Buck during this campaign have been extraordinarily dishonest by both Bennett's campaign and the so-called independant expenditures run against Buck. Brazen misrepresentation of Buck's past statements and positions.

    The Denver Post while endorsing his opponent called out Bennett for the dishonest campaign ads.

    Bennett is a hack put in place by Phil Anschutz' influence over Denver mayor and governor candidate Hickenlooper – first as DPS Superintendent where he did hack work and mediocrity leaving Governor Bill Ritter.

  5. CEJ  •  Oct 17, 2010 @9:11 pm

    A few things about "Buck the teabagger":

    He believes being gay is a choice, on MTP: " I think that birth has an influence over it like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice."

    He does not support repealing DADT; he claims that "ending the ban would create distractions that are caused by allowing lifestyle choices to become part of the discussion."

    On abortion: " I don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest" and saving the life of the mother is open to interpretation."

    On the 17th amendment (direct election of senators): "it has taken us down the wrong path."

    Supports Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment which would grant fertilized human eggs legal rights.

    You might also wish to know that during the CO repug primary he said "Why should you vote for me? Because I do not wear high heels!"

    Lastly, you just might want to know the suspect in the 2005 "buyer's remorse" case admitted on tape he knew it was rape and the police recommended he be charged.

    http://coloradoindependent.com/63925/suspect-in-troubling-05-buck-case-said -he-knew-it-was-rape

  6. G Thompson  •  Oct 17, 2010 @11:03 pm

    You mean you have a prosecutor in the USA who looked at the facts and evidence of a case and concluded that the actual trier of facts would more likely than not conclude that their was no case to answer and that prosecutor then decided not to prosecute thereby NOT wasting the courts time, nor putting all parties through a very emotional and mentally draining exercise?

    OMG the horror!!!

    ummm.. If you lot don't want him as a prosecutor in the USA we in Australia will take him ;) though hang on.. as an officer of the court.. isn't it his ethical duty to do the above anyway.. whodathunkit

    oh and #CEJ admissions on tape do not a confession make, and only apply to matters of fact that do not involve criminal intent, and in this case personal liability and prior knowledge of that 'personal liability" of BOTH parties would be a big burden to get over especially on the intent.

  7. Mike  •  Oct 18, 2010 @12:21 am

    CEJ: That link is a great insight into how brainwashed the average American male has become. If a girl says it's rape, then he believes it. Clearly he didn't think it was rape. Yet she guilted him, and as a product of the American culture, he eventually bought into her lies.

    Unfortunately for women, the average American male has become a pitiable creature. Soon enough there won't be any men around willing to protect women from real rape. Or do we believe that as a the "last remaining superpower," the Nanking Massacre or Rape of Berlin could never happen here?

  8. piperTom  •  Oct 18, 2010 @6:49 am

    As an advocate for equality of the sexes, I'd like to point out that the facts of the case also support a charge of rape against HER. … not very well, in either case.

    Is anyone but me tired of this sort of non-violent "rape" being classed as a felony? After all, what actually happened to her? By her own telling, she wasn't forced; she wasn't threatened; she wasn't injured; she suffered no financial loss. Net: nothing!

  9. Professor Coldheart  •  Oct 18, 2010 @8:35 am

    I’ll go further, and alienate 99% of our readers

    First disapproving comment out of nine equals about 11% of your readers. I guess you have more fans than you thought!

  10. Patrick  •  Oct 18, 2010 @8:40 am

    It's a hallmark of the Silent Majority that it remains silent.

  11. Ken  •  Oct 18, 2010 @11:08 am

    There is definitely a sentiment in some circles that an accusation of rape, or sexual assault, or sexual harassment, carries inherent credibility — that the mere fact of the accusation suggests that the accusation is probably true.

    This is dogma, not logic. Nor, as far as I can tell, is it backed up with statistics or science.

    Let me say this, though: critics of prosecutors reluctant to prosecute "date rape" have a point, to a certain extent. Prosecutors, in my experience, do not demonstrate any hesitation to pick a side in most he-said-she-said cases not involving sex. One guy punches another? Prosecutors routinely accept the story of one side over the protestations of the other side that it was self-defense. One side says X was withheld fraudulently, and other side says X was disclosed? Prosecutors routinely pick sides. This is ESPECIALLY true when the "he said" in question is a cop, whose word is treated as inherently more credible.

    Yet when sex is at issue, prosecutors abruptly become circumspect about credibility issues. That's because there's a strong social undercurrent about women asking for it if they invited someone into their apartment, but not so much a strong social undercurrent that someone who got punched in the nose was probably asking for it.

    There's no reason to treat the guy who says he got punched as inherently more credible than the woman who says she was raped. But we do — and the criminal justice system does. "Rape advocates" generally try to push the pendulum too far in the other direction, which gets you things like the Duke Lacrosse incident. But there's a kernel of truth in the criticisms here.

  12. mojo  •  Oct 18, 2010 @11:21 am

    Is "sensitivity" now defined as "letting someone else tell you what's right"?

  13. Mike  •  Oct 18, 2010 @4:34 pm

    As an advocate for equality of the sexes, I’d like to point out that the facts of the case also support a charge of rape against HER.

    That is impossible, because women are not capable of being active sexual choosers. Instead, they can only agree to consent to allow a man to take him. Or so the feminist thinking goes.

    I don't know one guy who hasn't been ridiculed for his sexual "choice" made the night before while drunk. Are those women that I and every other guy had sex with while totally – and obviously – wasted, rapists?

    Why not? We clearly couldn't give knowing consent.

    If a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, are they both rapists?

    If not, why not?

    If people truly took equality seriously, 90% of "date rape" wouldn't be filed. But feminism is not about equality – it's about male oppression.

    Or didn't anyone learn anything from the Duke LAX Prosecution?

  14. Imaginary Lawyer  •  Oct 18, 2010 @7:26 pm

    A woman who invites her ex-boyfriend over to her house, gets him drunk, and gets herself drunk, at night and alone, is asking for it.

    Gets him drunk? Did she hold him down and stuff a bong down his throat?

    It's funny, but if a feminist blog were to warn its readers 'never be home alone with a man, particularly an ex-boyfriend, if you're both drinking' it would get screams of outrage at being man-hating, bigoted and assuming all men are untrustworthy perverts who rape at the slightest provocation. But hey: that's different!

    It's also funny to hear Mike advocate that what women need to do is not to get off their asses and protect themselves, but should go running to a man to…uh…protect them from rape by other men. Because….it's better to have a big strong boyfriend than a Smith & Wesson? Because rape protection is one of those things you keep a man around for, like killing spiders and opening stuck jar lids? Because women shouldn't expect protection unless they are some male's valuable property?

  15. SPQR  •  Oct 18, 2010 @8:52 pm

    Notice how CEJ is repeating the misrepresentations of Ken Buck that Democrats have been trading in during the campaign.

    Can't call the level of dishonesty in this Senate campaign astonishing but it is pretty high.

  16. ThatPirateGuy  •  Oct 19, 2010 @8:46 am

    Would the existence of a tape in which the accused apologizes for raping her change your mind?

    I am told that there is tape with such content and that Ken Buck was made aware of this. Am I misinformed?

  17. Mandy  •  Oct 25, 2010 @9:39 am

    I thought part of the disgust was that Buck took into consideration that this woman had aborted her ex's baby, and he thinks very little of women who have abortions.

    And Mike your comments just out you as an asshole MRA.