all 57 comments

[–]Aiadon 159 points160 points  (6 children)

It's good to see freedom and justice win over feminist draconic laws.

[–]down_with_whomever 25 points26 points  (2 children)

If only this were a national case, and not just in Washington state.

[–]AngryWatchmaker 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Its a good start, but it will never happen in California.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's actually kind of odd that Washington decided this so soon after California instituted that Yes means Yes continuous affirmative consent bullshit.

[–]rockymountainoysters 24 points25 points  (2 children)

It's just good to see 6 out of 9 justices decide that men are as entitled to due process as women are.

[–]RedPill115 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't know, it's kind of scary that 3 of them didn't.

[–]1 MMachiavellianRed 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Probably women. Feminist friendly. Or both. I'd be interested to know the specifics.

[–]1User-31f64a4e 57 points58 points  (5 children)

Awesome!

And this also demonstrates that some women will let slip the truth from time to time (emphasis mine) :

Emily Cordo, former legal director of the Sexual Violence Law Center in Seattle, agreed.

"You are going to have decisions from jurors based on misperceptions about how victims should behave rather than based on what the defendant did," she said. "Washington, like every other state, has a real problem getting actual rapists convicted. This makes it that much more difficult."

So this woman tacitly admits that not all rapes are for real in the course of noting that "actual" ones may be more difficult to convict.

Interesting.

[–]topspeedj 22 points23 points  (4 children)

If she admits that not all rapes are real, how is she so certain when someone's an 'actual' rapist?

She sounds like she's of the mindset that they should just convict all men accused of rape 'just in case', like a big damn fishing net.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 12 points13 points  (2 children)

should just convict all men accused of rape 'just in case', like a big damn fishing net.

Yes. It's only men being harmed, so no biggie.

Two-faced Janus is the god of feminism, with one side preaching equality, the other claiming that all women are vulnerable and all men are evil brutes. The magic of sucking and blowing simultaneously.

[–]trpiece 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" ~ Blackstone

That bitch is retarded. I can't stop being angry at people like this.

[–]RedPill115 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two-faced Janus is the god of feminism, with one side preaching equality, the other claiming that all women are vulnerable and all men are evil brutes. The magic of sucking and blowing simultaneously.

I've seen it discussed as the Motte and Bailey doctrine. When attacked you preach equality, when the attacks go away you back to doing the blatantly one-sided things you've been doing.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 50 points51 points  (1 child)

prosecutors now have to prove that sex wasn't consensual in certain rape cases.

The fact that this wasn't true before is frightening and sad.

[–]Draki1903 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, it evidently changed. Let's encourage progress instead of looming on the old times.

[–]666Evo 39 points40 points  (6 children)

I find it staggering (I should know better by now...) that A) This had to be voted on and B) 33.33% of the supreme court was AGAINST the burden of proof being on the accuser!

[–]TheThingsIThink 16 points17 points  (4 children)

The burden is on the state. No damn way we should take any accuser at their word, for anything.

[–]666Evo 10 points11 points  (3 children)

I don't think you understand. Having the burden of proof is literally the opposite of being taken at your word...

[–]TheThingsIThink 8 points9 points  (2 children)

The 'victim' is the accuser. The burden of proof is on the State. The court/jury weighs the case because we should not trust the accuser at their word. I think we agree at cross points.

[–]Azothlike 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The state represents the victim/accuser in this case, so they're one in the same.

[–]tabularaja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe it works more like the victim is evidence used by the state to prosecute a crime. The state represents the law that was broken, not the defendant.

[–]2NiftyDolphin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, out of the 9 members of the court, three are men. So there's your 33%.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (12 children)

Those 3 prosecutors should be disbarred from the law.

[–]username1153 21 points22 points  (7 children)

I wouldn't be surprised if all three of them were women.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]snobocracy 14 points15 points  (5 children)

    How the hell do people with such poor reasoning skills get so much power over others?

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    Never attribute to ignorance that which can be more easily explained by greed. I work with lawyers. They aren't dumb, but they sure as hell will say what they need to say to get what they want.

    [–]hipst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Easy, they have a simple majority.

    [–]Ochreata 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Because people with even worse reasoning skills believe that government has a legitimate right to the use of force.

    [–]-Tyler_Durden- 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    They need to be put on an island to fend for themselves.

    [–]Mightyskunk 13 points14 points  (1 child)

    It's been shown before that women can't do that. They just argue and loaf about.

    [–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    They need some fat, mostly unattractive farm girls, then shit would get done. No way in hell they would all work, but the fat chicks who grew up working and surviving would continue to do so. Hot or mostly attractive women will only do the bare minimum, about a month after it hits the crisis point.

    [–]Revolution4028 13 points14 points  (1 child)

    It's depressing that we, in the TRP community, rejoice over what was once our birth right in this country. I know not all TRP subscribers are from the U.S., but most constitutional republics rely on the same foundation of liberty. Innocent until proven guilty. It's a real reflection of our time that we upvote this post with such enthusiasm when it should've been dismissed as ludicrous from the very beginning.

    [–]hipst 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    The UCC and associated "fines" are proof that "Innocent until proved Guilty" was fed the cyanide pill long ago in the US.

    [–]1pcadrian 13 points14 points  (0 children)

    "Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due process principles," Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority, saying it raises "a very real possibility of wrongful convictions."

    Female judge speaking openly about this. God bless.

    the majority said the use of force is an element of the crime: It can't be true that a rape case involved both forcible compulsion and consent

    Simple yet powerful logic.

    [–]OpprobriousHemistich 29 points30 points  (0 children)

    Guess which 6 judges are going to be 'retiring' soon.

    [–]Thursday088 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    Good thing to see "innocent until proven guilty" is still a thing in certain parts of this country.

    [–]CreateTheFuture 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    is still once again a thing

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Link said that because of procedural rules, he did not expect the ruling to lead to many new trials for defendants convicted under the old Supreme Court holdings.

    IOW, if you got fucked over in the past... oh well, tough shit.

    [–]polysyllabist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That is exceptionally disheartening.

    [–]sir_wankalot_here 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Throw some crumbs to keep the beta men happy. Rights are eroded by 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. The key words are "in certain rape cases".

    Why not just make the law state if rape accusations are made on sundays regular law stands. If made on Monday to Saturday "defendants had the burden of proof to prove that the accuser's accusations were false". If this law would be imposed I bet 99.9% of rapes would only occur Monday to Saturday.

    [–]an0n4btc 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Rights are eroded by

    ...a logarithmic scale. Boiling frogs being the more commonly known analogy.

    [–]sir_wankalot_here 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    You are corect but it does not really discribe how it works. A politician want to impose a new tax, lets say a sales tax. So when he is elected, he will make the tax 15%. Then a year before he is reelected, he cuts the tax to 10%, and claims he cut taxes. The idiot voters forget he was the one who created the tax in the first place. Then when he is relected he increased the tax to 20%. Then next election cuts it to 15%.

    What amazes me is how fucking stupid people are. You can even show them the facts and they will be in denial.

    My dog is more intelligent then most people. If I would cut his food every week by 5% and kicking him in the head everyday. After a month of this he would probably bite my leg off.

    [–]Sgt_peppers 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    The fact that this is news and even debatable is disgusting. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    [–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Nuclear hamsters at 11 as women realize retroactive regret rape is no longer going to fly.

    [–]tobythetiger 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Rape hysteria seems to be just a US thing. Even in Britain in our march towards an Orwellian dystopia rape isn't so much on the radar.

    [–]DudeZoltan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Rape hysteria seems to be just a US thing.

    No. I'm here in Germany and it's quite the shit here too.

    [–]brotherjustincrowe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    From what I hear Sweden is one of the worst. Yet neighboring Finland is alright.

    [–]Ududude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That's surprising, given Rotherham and everything.

    [–]BluepillProfessor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    What? Criminal defendants don't have to prove their innocence? If ANY woman anywhere is harmed, or even frustrated or annoyed that is more than enough reason to scrap the 4th, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendment.

    Somebody obviously didn't get the memo. This is a War on Women. I can hear the political ads now: Why it feels just like I was raped all over again.

    [–]NiceGuyNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Great day to be a Washingtonian. I've been following TRP for about 3-4 months now and as a 21 year old college student, this is good to hear.

    [–]Dr_Wally -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    I feel like you need those legal signs at your front door that alot of American parks have at the entrance. If you get hurt or do something stupid its your responsibility not the parks. Should have something similar to that on my front door.