Comments by taceohat
Page 1 of 1
Posted on November 19 at 4:14 p.m.
The blazing soccer ball on the front page seems a bit tasteless in light of how many people lost their homes.
2 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 4:12 p.m.
It is amazing to me that people are forgiving "young people" for "making a mistake". Sure, I've made mistakes- but I have never lit a fire in a high fire danger zone or anywhere outside of a proper fireplace. My parents taught me to never play with fire and the realities and dangers of fire. They teach it to you in school, and after school programs. This is not a silly mistake. They didn't just break into a hotel jacuzzi or egg a house. This is something they knew not to do that killed at least one person, injured people and who knows about the animals - domestic or wild.
Of course the cause of death for the 98 year old was the fire. Maybe not from smoke inhalation - but he had to be evacuated, moved in a highly stressful situation. The shock is enough. No fire, no evacuation, still alive.
1 of 7 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 18 at 10:13 p.m.
Let's not pretend here. Never heard of any SBCC or UCSB students having a bonfire up in Montecito/Mission Canyon. Too far to drive let alone walk. The beach maybe. But hardly any SBCC or UCSB students live up there.
All roads point to : WESTMONT.
Posted on December 19 at 12:44 p.m.
DarNel,
Actually - the press and police have always used victim and alleged victim and it was only during and after the kobe bryant case that people - especially right wing radio talk show hosts - started using "accuser". Think about how this blames the victim of a crime. You don't hear people call a person who reports being mugged an accuser. You don't hear people call a person who is reporting that their house burned in arson an accuser. You don't hear someone who was hit by a drunk driver called an accuser. They are called victims - even before the case goes to court. You only hear about it with rape victims.
ps. sa1 - meant the editor of the written version.
Posted on December 18 at 8:04 p.m.
Would also like to add that this reporter seems to be writing from a very biased opinion in favor of the soccer star. Any professional reporter would use the appropriate terminology - suspect and either alleged victim or victim. It is a gross violation of news writing standards to call the victim "the accuser". That is a term that was only recently created and used during the Kobe Bryant case to try to discredit the victim. Although Frimpong is not on the same scale as Bryant, there seems to be continuos reminders of what a home town hero he was. The reporter also injected his own uneducated opinion. My favorite was last Thursday in the paper, saying "Peculiarly, however, the alleged vicim's DNA was found on a swab taken from Frimpong's penis." He did use the correct term for the victim that time -but "peculiarly"??? why do you think it is peculiar? Who made you an expert on what is the norm and what is peculiar? Where is your editor?
Posted on December 18 at 3:25 p.m.
Many times in sexual assault cases, there is no DNA found. If someone showers, pees, wipes, spits, gargles, etc- the DNA literally goes down the drain. And while forensic nurses do their best - sometimes they miss it. The fact that no DNA came up, just means it wasn't on the swabs that were submitted and analyzed. It doesn't mean the DNA was never there. It is more common to find victim DNA on the perpetrator's scrotum than to find perpetrator DNA on the victim ( you do the visualization)- either because the victim peed, wiped, etc - or perhaps the perp didn't ejaculate - or made her wipe up. In this particular case, there was evidence to back up the victims story - every step of the way. She said he bit her, there were bite marks, she said he touched her a certain place or held her down, there were bruises there, etc. Regarding the alcohol - Drinking alcohol does not mean you deserve to be assaulted or that you are a liar. In this case - he knew she was drinking and in fact provided alcohol to her (which is something perp's do- they ply the victim with alcohol so they are more vulnerable) and check the legal code people - if someone is intoxicated - they can't consent to sexual acts- meaning - it is almost automatically rape. He knew she was drinking, gave her the drinks and then raped her. Being a good athlete or playing on the team that got the championship doesn't make him innocent. 85% of all assaults happen by someone the victim knows - and are those people you think are so nice and "would never do that". It is hard for people to accept because calling this rape means that you are probably recalling something in your own life that you now have to identify as rape from either the victim or perpetrator standpoint. It is not ok to force any sexual activity on anyone and it is not ok to get them drunk or give them drugs in order to do it. And using your power as a well-liked, influential or popular person is not ok. What were all those mom's of the soccer team members doing supporting this perpetrator - you should be ashamed.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
0 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 4:42 p.m.
Any "proof from a news source other than Westmont?
On Tea Fire Cause Is Determined