collapse

* Recent Posts

Maximilian Langenfeld by mileskishnish72
[Today at 06:52:18 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by brewcity77
[Today at 06:16:28 AM]


NIL Future by Uncle Rico
[Today at 06:16:10 AM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by rocket surgeon
[Today at 05:39:36 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by WhiteTrash
[April 18, 2024, 09:34:43 PM]


MU Gear by TallTitan34
[April 18, 2024, 07:27:40 PM]


Recruiting as of 3/15/24 by Uncle Rico
[April 18, 2024, 05:33:25 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: WTF, California? WTF?!?  (Read 2665 times)

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
WTF, California? WTF?!?
« on: September 20, 2016, 03:15:49 PM »
http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1128419/corey-haims-a-list-rapist-may-finally-be-named-what-took-so-long

This is sickening.  A victim can't name his/her accuser because California's laws are more protective of the perpetrator than the victim... WTF?!?  And here we thought not getting jail time for sexual assault was the worst thing that could happen in California.

Essentially, the way I'm reading this is that because "regular sexual assault" has no exemption from the statute of limitations, whoever raped Mr. Haim in the early 80's cannot be prosecuted today, of course - even if there is incontrovertible evidence - and without any investigation into to the truth of the matter by law enforcement that may bolster the victim's account, the perpetrator can then turn around and sue his accuser for libel; further, because the onus is now on the victim to prove the truth (instead of the state), the perpetrator eventually wins millions of dollars in a judgment, discredits his victim in the process, and escapes with little harm to his reputation.  Am I on track here?

Now we know how Cosby got away with this for decades... hopefully someone will have the strength to come forward (assuming the rumors and accusations are true) and inspire others to do the same.

Way to go, California.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2016, 04:00:04 PM »
Isn't the essential problem the hearsay aspect of this?  Corey Feldman essentially wants to say "Corey Haim told me that he was raped by John Doe."  But since there is no evidence of that, and Haim is dead, Feldman really can't prove his statement is correct.

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4212
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2016, 04:20:39 PM »
So, you're telling me that the Hollywood A-Listers that embrace Roman Polanski might be protecting another child rapist?  I'm shocked.

/And the article is a little vague on why Feldman cannot name names.  Not sure if it's just plain old libel/defamation or if there is something else going on there.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2016, 08:23:42 PM »
Isn't the essential problem the hearsay aspect of this?  Corey Feldman essentially wants to say "Corey Haim told me that he was raped by John Doe."  But since there is no evidence of that, and Haim is dead, Feldman really can't prove his statement is correct.

Exactly... Feldman is merely repeating what Haim said.  If multiple people were present at the time and can substantiate that "these were Haim's words, not Feldman's," then I would think so long as Feldman had no reason to believe that Haim was lying and was not repeating Haim's words with malicious intent, then he would be protected.  In other words, Feldman shouldn't have to prove whether or not Haim was raped, he should only have to prove that Haim actually said these words, which shouldnt be too difficult to do considering multiple people heard the same words.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10013
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2016, 08:35:16 PM »
Exactly... Feldman is merely repeating what Haim said.  If multiple people were present at the time and can substantiate that "these were Haim's words, not Feldman's," then I would think so long as Feldman had no reason to believe that Haim was lying and was not repeating Haim's words with malicious intent, then he would be protected.  In other words, Feldman shouldn't have to prove whether or not Haim was raped, he should only have to prove that Haim actually said these words, which shouldnt be too difficult to do considering multiple people heard the same words.

So you shouldn't have to prove that a crime actually was committed, only that lots of people heard someone claim a crime was committed?

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22871
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2016, 09:32:41 PM »
I'm no lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV), but this sounds like almost the textbook definition of "hearsay" to me.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2016, 09:39:58 PM »
So you shouldn't have to prove that a crime actually was committed, only that lots of people heard someone claim a crime was committed?

Isn't that what journalists do every day... report what they hear without proving up the facts?
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2016, 09:50:21 PM »
Isn't that what journalists do every day... report what they hear without proving up the facts?

No.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22871
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2016, 09:58:48 PM »
Isn't that what journalists do every day... report what they hear without proving up the facts?

Good journalists don't do this.

It's like saying, "Isn't that what police officers do every day ... shoot unarmed black men?" or "Isn't that what Penn State assistant football coaches do every day ... rape their players?"

There are d-bags in every industry.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2016, 10:58:23 PM »
No.

So never has a journalist ever scooped a story based on a source that turned out to be false?  Seriously?
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

brandx

  • Guest
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2016, 11:55:38 PM »
So never has a journalist ever scooped a story based on a source that turned out to be false?  Seriously?

You changed your story just a bit ;D ;D

A couple posts ago, you said "Isn't that what journalists do every day". Now it has changed to "So never has a journalist ever scooped a story based on a source that turned out to be false?"

Quite a leap. Dare I say, a leap of chica-esque proportions..

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10013
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2016, 09:33:19 AM »
So never has a journalist ever scooped a story based on a source that turned out to be false?  Seriously?

And depending on who that source is*, that journalist could be liable for libel for writing a false story .... especially a story that falsely accuses someone of being a child rapist.

* Journalists are protected if the bad information comes from an official source or document, i.e. a police statement, court filing, government report, etc. That protection would not extend if, say, the source was a former child star who says what another former child star told him many years ago.

Golden Avalanche

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3164
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2016, 10:14:29 AM »
Isn't that what journalists do every day... report what they hear without proving up the facts?

This is a ridiculous bailout from your initial outrage.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2016, 10:39:46 AM »
You changed your story just a bit ;D ;D

A couple posts ago, you said "Isn't that what journalists do every day". Now it has changed to "So never has a journalist ever scooped a story based on a source that turned out to be false?"

Quite a leap. Dare I say, a leap of chica-esque proportions..

Go back and re-read.  Bottom line is that journalists often will quote someone without immediately checking the facts; it happens all the time, in fact, I don't think it's a stretch to say it happens every day, especially during campaign season.

But back to the original matter... I don't think the issue is so much California's overprotective libel laws as it is their statute of limitations regarding sexual assault of a child.  17 states allow victims of rape to bring charges at any time.  Wisconsin has no limitation or until the victim is 45 years old depending on the situation.  There is no unlimited time frame in Illinois under any circumstances, but the state does allow any victim of sexual assault (as a child) to bring charges until the age of 38.

In California (for crimes occurring prior to 1991), you have six years to bring charges unless it was aggravated (e.g. raped at gunpoint, multiple assailants, serious injury, etc.), period.  The legislature introduced SB 813 earlier this year which eliminates the statute of limitations on sexual assault.... it passed both the house and senate unanimously on 8/18 and 8/30, respectively... yet the governor still hasn't signed the bill and only has until next week to do so.

The fact that a victim's friends and family have to remain silent under threat of prosecution for libel is ancillary to the issue.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10013
Re: WTF, California? WTF?!?
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2016, 10:57:58 AM »
But back to the original matter... I don't think the issue is so much California's overprotective libel laws as it is their statute of limitations regarding sexual assault of a child.  17 states allow victims of rape to bring charges at any time.  Wisconsin has no limitation or until the victim is 45 years old depending on the situation.  There is no unlimited time frame in Illinois under any circumstances, but the state does allow any victim of sexual assault (as a child) to bring charges until the age of 38.

In California (for crimes occurring prior to 1991), you have six years to bring charges unless it was aggravated (e.g. raped at gunpoint, multiple assailants, serious injury, etc.), period.  The legislature introduced SB 813 earlier this year which eliminates the statute of limitations on sexual assault.... it passed both the house and senate unanimously on 8/18 and 8/30, respectively... yet the governor still hasn't signed the bill and only has until next week to do so.

The fact that a victim's friends and family have to remain silent under threat of prosecution for libel is ancillary to the issue.

If I'm not mistaken, I think you'll find that most of those laws eliminating/expanding the statutes of limitations have been passed relatively recently.
More importantly, the changes in statute of limitations can't be applied retroactively. So, even if California or any other state were to eliminate the statute of limitations for sex offenses, a person who may have committed a sex offense in, say, 1981 couldn't now be charged. The law that would be applied would be the law as it stood in 1981.
I don't think I worded that artfully, but hopefully it's understood.