Brian Banks was a former high school football star when he was accused of rape by Wanetta Gibson. Gibson’s name was sealed as a rape victim while Banks was publicly accused as a rapist despite his insistence that it was consensual sex. It was his word against hers and prosecutors threatened him with life imprisonment if he went to trial, so he pleaded guilty to a rape that he did not commit. He spent five years in jail. When he was released he was surprised when his “victim” asked to befriend him on Facebook. She later admitted that she made the whole thing up but did not want to give back the $1.5 million that she won in a judgment against the school district for her alleged rape. She retains the money despite admitting to lying about the rape.
Banks was 16 and a student at Long Beach Poly High School when he said that he made out with Gibson but did not go beyond groping and kissing. He was a talented football star being scouted by colleges for possible scholarships. The ended the same day when Gibson accused him of rape. Prosecutors pushed forward with the case despite an absence of critical forensic evidence and the fact that Gibson’s account changed over time. Banks’ mother sold her condo and her car to pay for his defense.
After his release, Gibson met Banks and agreed to speak in front of an investigator. She is quoted as saying “I will go through with helping you but it’s like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back.”
Since this case occurred ten years ago, it is not clear if Gibson will even be investigated, let alone charged for her false statements. In the meantime, she is keeping the money . . . what she has not already spent.
There is also no response from prosecutors on why they pushed forward with the case given the conflicts in the account of the alleged victim and absence of forensic evidence establishing guilt.
A judge has finally expunged the conviction of Banks so that he does not have to remain on parole. He already served the jail time.
Source: ABA Journal
Take a look at the videos that ended my teaching career when some of my female students employed their mothers to call the school and complain I was trying to film them for prurient reasons. Some others twittered about it later bragging about getting me fired. I can easily believe there are numerous false accusations of rape after seeing what I’ve seen.
http://teacherhunt.blogspot.com/2011/11/student-inventor-projects.html
http://teacherhunt.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post.html
Of course many women love to use the silent treatment on men. Somehow it is wrong if “he hits” but okay if “she gives him the silent treatment”.
The silent treatment is not much different from shunning, and both the silent treatment and shunning are recognized as mental abuse.
The top four items of KTLA (Channel 5 in LA) RSS feed:
1. Missing Girls Found Safe, Mother Arrested on suspicion of child endangerment after she left her daughters with a stranger identified as “CC” on Wednesday.
2. Police Officer’s Ex-Wife Booked on Murder Charge
3. Beachgoers Beware: Dangerous Rip Tides Expected
4. Young Mother Gets Prison for Beating 4-year-old to Death
I’ll add I just found out my niece’s mother just drove off to Texas abandoning my niece who now lives exclusively with my brother.
I’m not blaming all women for the horrible behaviors of some, but it’s bigotry to ignore the problem these bitches cause the world or to say that labeling the sociopathic behaviors of these women constitutes misogyny.
Labeling a sociopathic behavior of a female misanthrope is not misogyny.
Lottakatz, shunning works in those small, enclosed, insular Orthodox Jewish communities in, say, Brooklyn. It is used, unfortunately, to punish women for trying to speak up for the rights of women or children, or against members of the community who protest real verifiable intolerable wrongs that the community wants them to hide because of “disgrace before the gentiles,” and so forth. It works to make the community more abusive to its weakest members, rather than to protect anyone except abusers.
Oh, occasionally we have a case where it punishes someone who is really, morally and otherwise strong. A plumber who insisted that it was his right to go to an old age home to pray with an elderly congregant who could not walk miles on Sabbath was firebombed because he wouldn’t cave in to shunning and other coercive techniques. A mother who insisted that her daughter should not be taken away from her and adopted was not only shunned but nearly had her daughter killed outright to punish her for disobedience to the will of an obvious abuser. Stuff like that. But as a concept, shunning is great, although no longer practicable.
“So the feminists have a very strong point in saying that any men (who are predisposed to finding fault with women because a “bitch” in their background has hurt them) who believe the bad behavior of a certain woman should be proof of the inherent evil of womankind are far wrong, far from the mark, and are feeding the flames of a form of human hatred that has probably given rise to the worst atrocities our culture produces.”
Then we are in completely agreement, because repeatedly, I have stressed I am not talking about all women, I am talking specifically about the bitches that oppress men. And you should not be defending them!
ON THE OTHERHAND, ASK A FEMINIST about the role of one man, any man, and they act as if all men were 1%ers leading companies, elected to office, harassing women they hire, raping women they employ. ANY MAN CAN BE A RAPIST. EVERYMAN IS CAPABLE OF RAPE. WE LIVE IN A PATRIARCHAL RAPE CULTURE.
So take your nonsense about how feminists are upset with how some men might generalize and shove it, because the entire feminist liturgy is one huge generalization about the evils of men after another.
Skiprob, Re: LIFE INTEREST.
The case is United States versus David Lanier (he’s the judge/defendant), decided January, 1996. Citation = 73 Federal Reporter 3rd, 1380 (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals) out of Tennessee. (I guessed Alabama or Arkansas, sorry. I probably forgot some of the other details too.)
“Anon, “men are oppressed” and “whites are oppressed” and the similar claims of people who do not think they are being treated completely fairly at all times (especially if they believe they have the god-given right to be treated a little more fairly than lesser beings might at certain times) are tired and essentially worthless arguments”
Malisha, that just doesn’t fly.
This woman actively engaged, as a rational adult, in the oppression of this football player using a sexual charge knowing full well she was lying but that she would be believed because she is a privileged female.
THIS IS OPPRESSION.
All the politically correct malarkey that men cannot be oppressed, that whites cannot be oppressed, that people of color cannot be bigots, is just that, politically correct malarkey.
You have a real example of a rational capable woman exploiting the system to oppress a man, send him to jail, and profit.
I honestly don’t know how you can call that anything other than oppression.
Anon, “men are oppressed” and “whites are oppressed” and the similar claims of people who do not think they are being treated completely fairly at all times (especially if they believe they have the god-given right to be treated a little more fairly than lesser beings might at certain times) are tired and essentially worthless arguments. So long as people carry on about actually being held accountable for things when no other rational process could begin to redress wrongs already perpetrated, there will be the “I am being unjustly blamed for the world’s ills” cry echoing all over the halls of lost privilege. Whereas it is much easier to blame our major social problems on bitches, Jews or assholes, here we are with a situation in which YES, although some women are very bad, the general idea that women are bad will not work any longer and YES, although some Jews are greedy, the general idea that the world’s economic problems are the result of the greedy Jews will not work any longer and YES, although some people are assholes, it no longer works to just kill some asshole to serve the world’s problems.
So the feminists have a very strong point in saying that any men (who are predisposed to finding fault with women because a “bitch” in their background has hurt them) who believe the bad behavior of a certain woman should be proof of the inherent evil of womankind are far wrong, far from the mark, and are feeding the flames of a form of human hatred that has probably given rise to the worst atrocities our culture produces.
kittyantonikwakfer, The problem with shunning is that it only works in small and insular groups where one doesn’t have a good alternative to staying in. At one time shunning or expulsion from an enclave of like-minded individuals was very likely a death sentence. Times have changed and so have demographics and opportunities. Give it a couple of weeks or months because memories are short, move to a different neighborhood or city, change your name if needed. That’s all it takes. Shunning worked in the 17th and 18th century in America and even now in some insular groups like the Amish but not today in any effective way.
anon, I consider the use of the word to be name calling and one that doesn’t advance any argument. It’s a red flag word with the purpose to inflame. If that’s your purpose, use it.
Using the word bitch is not a sign of misogyny. We reclaimed that.
Fixed that.
Seriously though, there are way too many authors and feminists proudly using the word bitch for it to be defacto misogynist.
I am using the word here to describe specific women that are actively engaging in oppression of men.
You should not cover up their hate crimes with a tone argument that you dislike the word bitch. You should expose their hate crimes for what they are: sociopathic misandry.
If you don’t do this, you are enabling these hate crimes and encouraging them.
You should consider for a moment what gender equality is, and ask if it is the permission for one gender to oppress the other.
And just to come with my usual “it’s better in Sweden”:
In Sweden, anyone who does jail time or is even held without bail unjustly can count of BIG money from the public pocket. So there is definitely a deterrent to false accusations or findings.
This is not a deterrent to the bitch making false accusations.
Compensation to victims are claimed against the perp, but often paid by the state as most perps are penniless.
This is not a deterrent to the bitch making false accusations.
ANON is off on his misogynist trail again. He should realize that he should get more therapy, and stop frequenting “feminist” blogs. I hope he has sufficient self-awareness to realize the truth in what I suggest to him.
You should probably take a few courses in economics and psychology and parenting.
Misogyny? Me? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I haven’t said a single misogynist thing. Using the word bitch is not a sign of misandry. We reclaimed that.
Status quo misandry? You’re soaking in it.
Skiprob, I think your questions are important because in American law, although there is plenty of litigation of property interests and liberty interests, there is NO litigation of life interests.
There was a judge in some Southern state (I can’t remember which one but possibly Arkansas or Alabama) who was basically THE judge in a one-judge town. Whenever he had custody cases in front of him he would take the mothers into chambers and basically tell them they would lose custody unless they gave him a blow job. He got a lot of blow jobs and he awarded custody (and child support) to a lot of women. At one point in his career, however, he did this to a woman who then managed to get a complaint to some Assistant US Attorney who for reasons best known to himself or herself actually came down on the good jurist like a ton of bricks, gathering statements and charging him with a criminal violation of the civil rights law for depriving these women of their constitutional rights under color of state law. He (or she) said that ruling on a case rightly or wrongly did not trip the wire for criminal conduct, but requiring sex for a favorable ruling did, even though it took place in the courthouse.
Yada yada.
He got convicted or he pled, I don’t remember which.
THEN he got the whole thing overturned either on appeal or habeas!
Why? Because when he had the women in chambers on their knees, they were NOT being restrained of their liberty because they were still free to get up, refuse to perform, and leave. THEN if they happened to lose custody, they could not PROVE that he had unlawfully deprived them of custody because the custody decision was within his discretion as a trial judge, and not to be overturned unless there was “no evidence in the record.” There could never, of course, be a lack of evidence in the record because all the judge had to refer to as evidence was testimony that he thought was credible. So if he wanted to take custody away from a mother, he could consider her ex-husband’s testimony credible no matter what he said, and he could then pronounce that it was in the best interests of the children to be in their fathers’ sole custody without contact with mom. Think of it, nothing would be wrong with that because he also did not deprive the mother of her liberty interest at THAT point in the proceedings. Her “liberty interest” in custody of her children was dependent upon the judge’s assessment of the children’s best interests!
So I looked at that case (years back). I realized that BECAUSE the life interest (international law calls certain manifestations of it “security of person” at times) is missing from American law, some cases cannot work their way into the equations that can be used to distill evidence and present claims. A judge is not taking ANYTHING away from a mother when he says, “Suck my dick or lose your kids,” because she had no liberty or property interest in either mothering her kids or “having a nice day” without the judge’s penis in her mouth.
This may seem like a nasty example but it is a pretty clear one.
Compensation to victims are claimed against the perp, but often paid by the state as most perps are penniless.
The amounts are very modest. Never so much as here given.
That in my opinion is too modest here, in relation to the damage done to a life by rape, or domestic violence.
Think of rape as the ursurpation of an women right to live in peace. Than apply that usurpation to our entire culture. It not hard to understand why there are so many rapes .If we socially allow the usupation of one right, then it opens the door for all rights to be usurped. The question is what do you consider the usurpation of an individual right. Is the Federal Inbcome Tax a usurpation? Is a permit to remodel your bathroom. Is a DUI when the defendent has not harmed anyone? Are all malum prohibitum laws usurpations?
Having read through for the first time here’s my take.
ANON is off on his misogynist trail again. He should realize that he should get more therapy, and stop frequenting “feminist” blogs. I hope he has sufficient self-awareness to realize the truth in what I suggest to him.
And just to come with my usual “it’s better in Sweden”:
In Sweden, anyone who does jail time or is even held without bail unjustly can count of BIG money from the public pocket. So there is definitely a deterrent to false accusations or findings.
We have had some grave cases however here. Notably, a willing pleader to several murders which was used by a prosecutor who should have been fired 20 years ago for various major faults as a leader of specialist units (economic crimes).
The best attorneys are the ones who act as public defenders, not the newly admitted to the bar.
As for bitches, I would not even call my old dog Skippy by that name. If you’re gonna use it, define it at least.
“Oh, everybody knows……” Yeah, that you’re sick in the heart and head. Poor man.
anon nurse,
“I was thinking about you because of some of your spot on comments.”
I appreciate the compliment. Sorry I missed it before.
anon nurse, thanks for the explanation. No harm done.
For those who did not understand (or chose to ignore) what I wrote regarding shunning, I will repeat and expand:
“And in such a society [one of justice] everyone knows what are the social consequences – shunning and ostracism by those who assess their behavior as unacceptable. And when it’s public, everyone else is assessed for their own acts of shunning (and restitution requirements too). Kind of like the old small towns of generations past; the Internet makes it all possible.”
The above *clearly* includes the answer to “Who will be “the deciders”, bettykath? You? Your neighbors?” -Those who think Wanetta Gibson’s actions were/are reprehensible/unacceptable. If someone thinks Wanetta’s (or anyone else’s) behavior/acts are acceptable, then s/he would not shun her. And PLEASE note that I also stated that when the shunning is publicly noted, those doing the shunning – or not shunning – are also transparent for the assessment of voluntary association by everyone else.
This entire process of social evaluation of all by all is one I and Paul Wakfer refer to as Social Preferencing, both negative and positive – the latter being preferential association with those who produce/demonstrate value to the assessor.
Evaluating products and services for usage or not has been a long time practice by everyone, most everywhere. It is now quite possible to do the same for people most everywhere and has the potential for being the ultimate effector of social order: http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html However, until anonymity is recognized to be an obstacle to social order (thought by very many – ?most? – at this time stlll to be impossible without the enormously heavy hand of governments/rulers) and *not* an enhancement to one’s interactions nor promoter of maximization of Lifetime Happiness, there will continue to be the social disorder seen, with increases in degree and frequency commonplace. (Additional article links at end of above provided essay. Public critiques are welcome but not on here on Jonathan Turley’s blog. Let me know where 🙂