Man falsely accused of sexual harassment and beaten to death

[Nova Cyberia]

The thing you're asking me for with your needless questioning.

Either state your point upfront or leave me be. I don't care to be strung along.

I'm sorry if my posts are long and complicated, but I've done just that before:

So it would be impossible to say that we believe her or not, since we don't know what we're supposed to believe.

To repeat myself: Since we don't know what she actually told her brother, let alone the police after the attack, we cannot really conclude if she's believable or not.

She told them she was sexually assaulted. We know this because reputable news agencies are reporting what the police have told then. They didn't say "the brother reported his sister had been sexually assaulted." They said she reported being sexually assaulted.

You're making this far, far more complicated than it needs to be.

She said he sexually assaulted her.

I know that's the summary put forth, but I still don't know if that's an accurate summary. Is that her saying it? Is it her brother? Is that a claim made by a witnesses? Is it the conlusion the police have made based on the later phone call they recieved? The press release lacks necessary details.

Again, the press reporting on what the police have said indicates that she told them this.

Okay, and yet none of those things happened. He didn't do anything. He walked past her. You know how I know this? Because there's fucking video evidence.

Still unreleased.

So? We still have reporting on it by reliable news organizations. Again, I really don't get why you insist on making this so complicated. In fact, it's fairly simple.

I really don't get what's so fucking difficult for you lot about this. If someone claims something happened but then video of the alleged incident doesn't show it then it probably didn't happen. I really don't fost what's so difficult about this. It seems pretty basic.

"Doesn't show" is very different from "didn't happen", as you now acknowledge by saying it probably didn't happen.

Right, it probably didn't happen. I'm willing to take that "probably" and roll with it since if he had actually flashed or ejaculated on her then they would have noted as much in the reporting on the matter and the police would have stated the camera captured a sexual assault (or whatever one might classify flashing as). But they didn't. He walked past her.

You seem to be practically searching for reasons to believe her.

If you go back to the top of yhis post, and look back at my previous posts, you'll find that I'm clearly saying that I cannot say that I believe her.

Why are you so adamant that she cannot be believed?

Because she created a fictitious sexual assault. You seem to be searching for reasons to believe her. I'm not.

You make it so easy. It's fun.

"Did not show" doesn't rule out the possibility that something happened but wasn't caught on camera.

Then it would disagree with what she said. She claimed she was sexually assaulted on the bus. For something to have happened that wasn't caught on camera it would have needed to take place off the bus, which would shatter her story even further.

[Gravlen]

I'm sorry if my posts are long and complicated, but I've done just that before:



To repeat myself: Since we don't know what she actually told her brother, let alone the police after the attack, we cannot really conclude if she's believable or not.

She told them she was sexually assaulted. We know this because reputable news agencies are reporting what the police have told then. They didn't say "the brother reported his sister had been sexually assaulted." They said she reported being sexually assaulted.

Yes - after the attack. That's not the question, however. The question is what she told her brother before the attack.

You're making this far, far more complicated than it needs to be.

Not really, but I understand that critical thinking may seem that way to some.

I know that's the summary put forth, but I still don't know if that's an accurate summary. Is that her saying it? Is it her brother? Is that a claim made by a witnesses? Is it the conlusion the police have made based on the later phone call they recieved? The press release lacks necessary details.

Again, the press reporting on what the police have said indicates that she told them this.

And again, there's a before and after here. If we're talking about punishing her for what her brother did, the focus needs to be on what she said before the attack.

Still unreleased.

So? We still have reporting on it by reliable news organizations. Again, I really don't get why you insist on making this so complicated. In fact, it's fairly simple.

Has any news org seen the video, or are they just basing their reporting on the press release?

"Doesn't show" is very different from "didn't happen", as you now acknowledge by saying it probably didn't happen.

Right, it probably didn't happen. I'm willing to take that "probably" and roll with it since if he had actually flashed or ejaculated on her then they would have noted as much in the reporting on the matter and the police would have stated the camera captured a sexual assault (or whatever one might classify flashing as). But they didn't. He walked past her.

...and, according to you, the video doesn't show that anything happened. Which doesn't mean that he didn't do anything. He could have done either surreptitiously.

Because she created a fictitious sexual assault. You seem to be searching for reasons to believe her. I'm not.

Your problem is that you've passed judgement already, without knowing all of the facts.

Then it would disagree with what she said. She claimed she was sexually assaulted on the bus. For something to have happened that wasn't caught on camera it would have needed to take place off the bus, which would shatter her story even further.

No, because the video may not show a sexual assault but may show a sex crime, or it may have happened without being captured by the camera. In either case, saying that it did not show sexual assault could be technically correct but fail to convey the whole story.

And you say "shatter her story" despite the fact that we don't really know what her story is (in particular, what she told her brother).

[Nova Cyberia]

She told them she was sexually assaulted. We know this because reputable news agencies are reporting what the police have told then. They didn't say "the brother reported his sister had been sexually assaulted." They said she reported being sexually assaulted.

Yes - after the attack. That's not the question, however. The question is what she told her brother before the attack.

And, again, she told him that she'd just been assaulted. I don't see what much difference it makes if grabbed her ass or breasts or ejaculated on her. It's a sexual assault.

You're making this far, far more complicated than it needs to be.

Not really, but I understand that critical thinking may seem that way to some.

Searching for reasons to believe someone isn't really critical thinking, especially when you're grasping at straws.

Again, the press reporting on what the police have said indicates that she told them this.

And again, there's a before and after here. If we're talking about punishing her for what her brother did, the focus needs to be on what she said before the attack.

Why does it matter? I mean, really, what difference does it make how he allegedly assaulted her? The video evidence does not show an attack taking place.

Or are you interested in what variety of lie she told?

So? We still have reporting on it by reliable news organizations. Again, I really don't get why you insist on making this so complicated. In fact, it's fairly simple.

Has any news org seen the video, or are they just basing their reporting on the press release?

I don't know. I'd reccomend sending them a letter and asking.

Right, it probably didn't happen. I'm willing to take that "probably" and roll with it since if he had actually flashed or ejaculated on her then they would have noted as much in the reporting on the matter and the police would have stated the camera captured a sexual assault (or whatever one might classify flashing as). But they didn't. He walked past her.

...and, according to you, the video doesn't show that anything happened. Which doesn't mean that he didn't do anything. He could have done either surreptitiously.

>according to you

...and the police... and the news organizations reporting on it.

But nah, sure. Gravlen isn't convinced that the police and news outlets are reporting the truth so something must definitely have happened.

Because she created a fictitious sexual assault. You seem to be searching for reasons to believe her. I'm not.

Your problem is that you've passed judgement already, without knowing all of the facts.

I know all the necessary facts. I know she reported being sexually assaulted on the bus and video evidence from the bus shows nothing happening.

By this point, you're worried about semantics.

Then it would disagree with what she said. She claimed she was sexually assaulted on the bus. For something to have happened that wasn't caught on camera it would have needed to take place off the bus, which would shatter her story even further.

No, because the video may not show a sexual assault but may show a sex crime

In which case it would have been captured by the cameras. But it wasn't.

or it may have happened without being captured by the camera

How? They were on a bus with cameras on it. The only way it wouldn't have been captured by the cameras is, again, if it didn't happen on the bus. In which case she would also be lying.

In either case, saying that it did not show sexual assault could be technically correct but fail to convey the whole story.

Yes, I know you like to cling to the unlikeliest of possibilities in a pathetic hope to exonerate this woman.

And you say "shatter her story" despite the fact that we don't really know what her story is (in particular, what she told her brother).

Yes, Gravlen, nothing can be certain until you see every iota of what happened.

[Cekoviu]

Why is it that every time I see someone living outside of here mention anything from Utah, it always has to be some horrifying story or ridiculous law?

[Jebslund]

Why is it that every time I see someone living outside of here mention anything from Utah, it always has to be some horrifying story or ridiculous law? :(

We're not the ones making horrifying things and ridiculous laws happen in Utah.

[Gravlen]

Yes - after the attack. That's not the question, however. The question is what she told her brother before the attack.

And, again, she told him that she'd just been assaulted. I don't see what much difference it makes if grabbed her ass or breasts or ejaculated on her. It's a sexual assault.

And we come full circle as I yet again ask, but what did she actually say?

We still don't know, and surprisingly, we repeating ourselves don't shed more light on this.

Not really, but I understand that critical thinking may seem that way to some.

Searching for reasons to believe someone isn't really critical thinking, especially when you're grasping at straws.

"We lack important information" is not grasping at straws. Making a judgement based on a sparse press release concerning an ongoing investigation is a failure of critical thinking.

And again, there's a before and after here. If we're talking about punishing her for what her brother did, the focus needs to be on what she said before the attack.

Why does it matter? I mean, really, what difference does it make how he allegedly assaulted her? The video evidence does not show an attack taking place.

Because the video purportedly doesn't show an attack taking place. If she said "He ripped all my clothes of and raped me" it's pretty obvious she was lying. If she said "He showed me his penis as he walked by and called me a whore" that is something the camera might not have picked up.

In the first case she fabricated a situation and lied. In the second case she might be telling the truth.

Or are you interested in what variety of lie she told?

I'm interested in whether she lied or not.

Has any news org seen the video, or are they just basing their reporting on the press release?

I don't know. I'd reccomend sending them a letter and asking.

You should do that before you refer to reporting on it by reliable news orgs, who're all reporting primarily based on the same press release.

...and, according to you, the video doesn't show that anything happened. Which doesn't mean that he didn't do anything. He could have done either surreptitiously.

>according to you

...and the police... and the news organizations reporting on it.

Indeed.

But nah, sure. Gravlen isn't convinced that the police and news outlets are reporting the truth so something must definitely have happened.

What?

I'm sorry, was the language I used too complicated again? I'll try it differently:

I am not saying that the police and news outlets aren't reporting the truth. I'm saying that the choice of words might be deliberate.

Your problem is that you've passed judgement already, without knowing all of the facts.

I know all the necessary facts. I know she reported being sexually assaulted on the bus and video evidence from the bus shows nothing happening.

Dude, you just made a spiel about the fact that it doesn't show that anything happened, and now you say it showed nothing happening.

Are you accusing news outlets of lying, or being bad at their jobs by being sloppy with their choice of words?

By this point, you're worried about semantics.

No, I'm worried about a substantial point - one that either leads her action to be rational and reasonable, or leads her action to be irrational, unreasonable, and potentially criminal.

No, because the video may not show a sexual assault but may show a sex crime

In which case it would have been captured by the cameras. But it wasn't.

Further speculation. We haven't seen the video, we don't know that. We don't even know if the police made a concious decision to specify that no "sexual assault" took place instead of saying "sex crime" or any other description of the event.

or it may have happened without being captured by the camera

How? They were on a bus with cameras on it. The only way it wouldn't have been captured by the cameras is, again, if it didn't happen on the bus. In which case she would also be lying.

You... do understand that these cameras have fixed positions, and thus cannot record all angels, right?

Was there even more than one camera onboard?

In either case, saying that it did not show sexual assault could be technically correct but fail to convey the whole story.

Yes, I know you like to cling to the unlikeliest of possibilities in a pathetic hope to exonerate this woman.

No.

So it would be impossible to say that we believe her or not, since we don't know what we're supposed to believe.

Again, it would be impossible for me to make a call one way or the other, let alone to exonerate the girl. In case you missed it, I'm the one saying we simply don't have sufficient information, while you're the one trying to rush to judgement for some reason.

And you say "shatter her story" despite the fact that we don't really know what her story is (in particular, what she told her brother).

Yes, Gravlen, nothing can be certain until you see every iota of what happened.

Not every iota. Just the basic information. Something more than a press release, for a start.

[Jebslund]

Why does it matter? I mean, really, what difference does it make how he allegedly assaulted her? The video evidence does not show an attack taking place.

Because the video purportedly doesn't show an attack taking place. If she said "He ripped all my clothes of and raped me" it's pretty obvious she was lying. If she said "He showed me his penis as he walked by and called me a whore" that is something the camera might not have picked up.

The camera certainly would have showed him reaching to take his dick out of his pants. That's not exactly stealthy, you know. And most cameras on buses these days do, in fact, record audio.

What?

I'm sorry, was the language I used too complicated again? I'll try it differently:

I am not saying that the police and news outlets aren't reporting the truth. I'm saying that the choice of words might be deliberate.

"I'm not saying they aren't reporting the truth! I'm just saying they're deliberately withholding the truth and choosing their words to misrepresent the facts! GAWD!".

Further speculation. We haven't seen the video, we don't know that. We don't even know if the police made a conscious decision to specify that no "sexual assault" took place instead of saying "sex crime" or any other description of the event.

Case in point.

You... do understand that these cameras have fixed positions, and thus cannot record all angles, right?

Was there even more than one camera onboard?

[corrected spelling of "angles". "angels" is the plural form of "angel", which are celestial beings said to be God's servants.]
They can see enough to tell the difference between just walking by and whipping out one's junk. For that matter, Guys don't just go off the moment they whip it out. And an ejaculation isn't just a few drops and done. It takes several seconds. A camera would have spotted that. Even whipping it out isn't so easy you can do it on the fly while walking by someone.

"We lack important information" is not grasping at straws. Making a judgement based on a sparse press release concerning an ongoing investigation is a failure of critical thinking.

No, but:

Right, it probably didn't happen. I'm willing to take that "probably" and roll with it since [b]if he had actually flashed or ejaculated on her [/b]then they would have noted as much in the reporting on the matter and the police would have stated the camera captured a sexual assault (or whatever one might classify flashing as). But they didn't. He walked past her.

...and, according to you, the video doesn't show that anything happened. Which doesn't mean that he didn't do anything. He could have done either surreptitiously.

is. Especially given what I said above.

[Cekoviu]

Why is it that every time I see someone living outside of here mention anything from Utah, it always has to be some horrifying story or ridiculous law?

We're not the ones making horrifying things and ridiculous laws happen in Utah.

Nor am I.
Really, most of the stuff that happens here is pretty mundane, and it could happen anywhere. It's just that nobody cares about us unless we're doing something insane. Kind of like Florida.

[Jebslund]

We're not the ones making horrifying things and ridiculous laws happen in Utah.

Nor am I.
Really, most of the stuff that happens here is pretty mundane, and it could happen anywhere. It's just that nobody cares about us unless we're doing something insane. Kind of like Florida.

Mundane doesn't make the news. People don't want to hear about people doing ordinary things. It's the same everywhere. How much do you hear about Arizona that isn't someone in this state cocking up or some nutjob killing people at a political rally?

[Cekoviu]

Nor am I.
Really, most of the stuff that happens here is pretty mundane, and it could happen anywhere. It's just that nobody cares about us unless we're doing something insane. Kind of like Florida.

Mundane doesn't make the news. People don't want to hear about people doing ordinary things. It's the same everywhere. How much do you hear about Arizona that isn't someone in this state cocking up or some nutjob killing people at a political rally?

I also hear about racist cops there, so ha!

[Galloism]

Mundane doesn't make the news. People don't want to hear about people doing ordinary things. It's the same everywhere. How much do you hear about Arizona that isn't someone in this state cocking up or some nutjob killing people at a political rally?

I also hear about racist cops there, so ha!

I heard they legalized nunchucks.

[Nova Cyberia]

And, again, she told him that she'd just been assaulted. I don't see what much difference it makes if grabbed her ass or breasts or ejaculated on her. It's a sexual assault.

And we come full circle as I yet again ask, but what did she actually say?

We still don't know, and surprisingly, we repeating ourselves don't shed more light on this.

There's only a limited amount of things that could fall under the category of sexual assault.

Considering video cameras didn't capture anything, I still don't see why it matters.

Searching for reasons to believe someone isn't really critical thinking, especially when you're grasping at straws.

"We lack important information" is not grasping at straws. Making a judgement based on a sparse press release concerning an ongoing investigation is a failure of critical thinking.

Ah, yes. Its all very complicated. She claimed she was sexually assaulted yet video evidence doesn't show it happening. For those of us who can put 2 + 2 together that's a pretty good indication that's she's fibbing.

Why does it matter? I mean, really, what difference does it make how he allegedly assaulted her? The video evidence does not show an attack taking place.

Because the video purportedly doesn't show an attack taking place. If she said "He ripped all my clothes of and raped me" it's pretty obvious she was lying. If she said "He showed me his penis as he walked by and called me a whore" that is something the camera might not have picked up.

And it also wouldn't be sexual assault. It would be sexual harassment.

I guess speculating that he committed a different crime is easier than admitting she lied.

In the first case she fabricated a situation and lied. In the second case she might be telling the truth.

Or are you interested in what variety of lie she told?

I'm interested in whether she lied or not.

Not really, considering you have yet to really even consider the possibility.

I don't know. I'd reccomend sending them a letter and asking.

You should do that before you refer to reporting on it by reliable news orgs, who're all reporting primarily based on the same press release.

Sure thing. I'll head to the post office right away.

>according to you

...and the police... and the news organizations reporting on it.

Indeed.

But nah, sure. Gravlen isn't convinced that the police and news outlets are reporting the truth so something must definitely have happened.

What?

I'm sorry, was the language I used too complicated again? I'll try it differently:

I am not saying that the police and news outlets aren't reporting the truth. I'm saying that the choice of words might be deliberate.

Yes, it is. Police don't come to conclusions. They present evidence and make arrests. They're not going to say whether or not they think she's pying. That isn't their job.

Another non-point. Well done.

Dude, you just made a spiel about the fact that it doesn't show that anything happened, and now you say it showed nothing happening.

Are you accusing news outlets of lying, or being bad at their jobs by being sloppy with their choice of words?

No, I'm not.

No, I'm worried about a substantial point - one that either leads her action to be rational and reasonable, or leads her action to be irrational, unreasonable, and potentially criminal.

In which case it would have been captured by the cameras. But it wasn't.

Further speculation. We haven't seen the video, we don't know that. We don't even know if the police made a concious decision to specify that no "sexual assault" took place instead of saying "sex crime" or any other description of the event.

Police do choose their words carefully, believe it or not.

How? They were on a bus with cameras on it. The only way it wouldn't have been captured by the cameras is, again, if it didn't happen on the bus. In which case she would also be lying.

You... do understand that these cameras have fixed positions, and thus cannot record all angels, right?

M8, have you ever been on a public bus before? They aren't exactly spacious. You don't need many cameras to capture most of what occurs on them. And it's also pretty fucking difficult to hide your actions in a cramped place like that with other people aboard.

Yes, I know you like to cling to the unlikeliest of possibilities in a pathetic hope to exonerate this woman.

So it would be impossible to say that we believe her or not, since we don't know what we're supposed to believe.

Again, it would be impossible for me to make a call one way or the other, let alone to exonerate the girl. In case you missed it, I'm the one saying we simply don't have sufficient information, while you're the one trying to rush to judgement for some reason.

I'm not rushing to anything. The simple fact of the matter is that video evidence is pretty damning. That's why I've come to a conclusion. If new information comes out and I'm wrong then so be it. But right now it doesn't seem to me like I am.

Yes, Gravlen, nothing can be certain until you see every iota of what happened.

Not every iota. Just the basic information. Something more than a press release, for a start.

We already have basic information, m8.

[Cekoviu]

You... do understand that these cameras have fixed positions, and thus cannot record all angels, right?

M8, have you ever been on a public bus before? They aren't exactly spacious. You don't need many cameras to capture most of what occurs on them. And it's also pretty fucking difficult to hide your actions in a cramped place like that with other people aboard.

I'd like to point out that Logan has a fairly low population and public buses don't tend to be very busy here; in fact, about 30% of the time, I'm one of one to three people on a bus (and that's for a much larger city).

[Jebslund]

Mundane doesn't make the news. People don't want to hear about people doing ordinary things. It's the same everywhere. How much do you hear about Arizona that isn't someone in this state cocking up or some nutjob killing people at a political rally?

I also hear about racist cops there, so ha!

I mean, you're not wrong.