I'm not harassing anyone for being a DA--read the piece. I don't use anyone's name
That's a lie. His name is mentioned four times in the piece you posted.
In quotations. *I* did not use the man's name. Hello?
So you copy and pasted rather than typed. The end result is the same - this person's name included in the text of an article you submitted. If you did not want to use his name and bring negative attention to him, you could have replaced it with '******'. Copy and pasting his name into your article is not any different to typing his name in your article.
Or, would it have been alright if the sports blogger writing about his daughter had simply included her name as a quote from somewhere else, and then put his inflammatory opinions? Didn't think so.
The man, as a DA, is in a public position. I am referrring to his *work*, not his body nor his self.
I know. And I'm taking issue with you chastising him for his work. The man is a defence attorney that defended his client. You don't seem to understand his unique position in the case as a defence attorney; he was not a judge or a juror. If he was in the position of judge or juror, Al Stokke may well have given these people a lengthy sentence and found them guilty. But he wasn't a judge, and he wasn't allowed to judge whether anyone was guilty.
His legal mandate was to advance any argument he thought might be successful, and he shouldn't be 'told off' for doing so.
In every single court case, there is either a lawyer who is defending a guilty person or prosecuting an innocent person. If you launched vigilante attacks on every lawyer who'd defended a bad person or prosecuted a nice person then the legal profession would be empty.
Consequently, the blame for accepting outlandish arguments from lawyers who are just doing their job needs to lie with the judge and jury, end of story.
And finally, regarding this whole "by reporting this story you're perpetuating it" line of argument: there is a difference between reporting (including news commentary) and harassment.
I know. That is why I didn't say anything against the Allison Stokke article you posted. That was just reporting an incident of harassment. This, however, is an incident of harassment in itself.
Morgan said:
I remember reading in "Against Our Will" the case of a little girl (I think she was 7 or 9) who was raped by her father, and a judge ruled that she had been "engaging in seductive behavior". It wasn't all that long ago, either. Wish I still had a copy of that book so I could look it up.
What is that book, Morgan? Omg, that's just like my case against my father, and that's the exact defence they gave against me too! I was also 7.
I was 17 when I tried the case, and they pulled my boyfriend up on the stand, and tried to dig up my past sexual partners! Of which, funnity enough, there were none at that time.
Klara said:
What is that book, Morgan? Omg, that's just like my case against my father, and that's the exact defence they gave against me too! I was also 7.
I was 17 when I tried the case, and they pulled my boyfriend up on the stand, and tried to dig up my past sexual partners! Of which, funnity enough, there were none at that time.
My lord, I am so sorry you went through that. It's a book by Susan Brownmiller, here's the Amazon link.
Jenni said:
'm taking issue with you chastising him for his work. The man is a defence attorney that defended his client.
Again, nope. Not chastising the man, nor his job, which--again--I said is a noble one. Chastising the fact that the arguments he successfully made *are* successful ones in this society.
Bitch_PhD said:
Again, nope. Not chastising the man, nor his job, which--again--I said is a noble one. Chastising the fact that the arguments he successfully made *are* successful ones in this society.
Okay. But the overall tone of your article did seem like it was condemning him. Or maybe it was the several pages of comments that followed saying 'Al Stokke is an asshole' that gave me that impression.
Jennifer_
Venezuela
November 2006
JUN 07, 2007 01:15 PM