Dude Gets Killed Over Running A Train After Chick Lies And Says She Was Raped

[Mister B.]

MGTOW, y'all.

You may think it's a silly concept, but that shit could've saved lives here.

Men go the over way sounds so fucking gay tho. And it's cac shit.

U either HOH or GMB

You ignoramus. MGTOW is "Men Going Their Own Way."

It doesn't mean you hate women, it means you're not subscribing the bullshit system that holds men down, especially when it comes to relationship issues. Y'all making it seem like MGTOWers can't fuck women or have wives. It just staying simp and sucka free. And you'd be surprised how many black men subscribe to the shit.

Besides, most of y'all muhfuckers on here would fail a HOH test. Half of y'all are white knights in disguise. Fuckin simp-ass moles.

Why do you need moral support for that?

Why not? It ain't like no one's giving fucks about Men's Rights otherwise. The world has most males painted as villains as soon as shit goes down before any questions are even asked. Dudes need all the support they can muster these days.

Lol nigga go your own way from round me

Don't worry. We do.

Females like you who walk around like your snatch is diamond-encrusted get never what you really want: attention by the barrel-full.

You have at it, boss lady.

you don't know me so how I walk around is definitely unknown to you. Especially my aforementioned "snatch".

you poor harmed mens rights activist. You poor oppressed man. I bet you believe in Reverse Racism too don't you? don't be a hypocrite now.

Boooooo.

And you don't know me to assume how "oppressed" I've been in my life. I calls it as I sees it. Y'all want equality, but wants less responsibility. That's bullshit. That's real.

So is reverse racism a thing or nah?

You tell me. Racism is based on one race believing it has superiority over another.

Since we as black folk never had superiority over anyone in this country, how can we be racist? We can be predjudiced....we can be bigoted...but racist? Not by dictionary standards.

Besides, your red herring is doing nothing more but skirting the point.

 

[Westie]

MGTOW, y'all.

You may think it's a silly concept, but that shit could've saved lives here.

Men go the over way sounds so fucking gay tho. And it's cac shit.

U either HOH or GMB

You ignoramus. MGTOW is "Men Going Their Own Way."

It doesn't mean you hate women, it means you're not subscribing the bullshit system that holds men down, especially when it comes to relationship issues. Y'all making it seem like MGTOWers can't fuck women or have wives. It just staying simp and sucka free. And you'd be surprised how many black men subscribe to the shit.

Besides, most of y'all muhfuckers on here would fail a HOH test. Half of y'all are white knights in disguise. Fuckin simp-ass moles.

Why do you need moral support for that?

Why not? It ain't like no one's giving fucks about Men's Rights otherwise. The world has most males painted as villains as soon as shit goes down before any questions are even asked. Dudes need all the support they can muster these days.

Lol nigga go your own way from round me

Don't worry. We do.

Females like you who walk around like your snatch is diamond-encrusted get never what you really want: attention by the barrel-full.

You have at it, boss lady.

you don't know me so how I walk around is definitely unknown to you. Especially my aforementioned "snatch".

you poor harmed mens rights activist. You poor oppressed man. I bet you believe in Reverse Racism too don't you? don't be a hypocrite now.

Boooooo.

And you don't know me to assume how "oppressed" I've been in my life. I calls it as I sees it. Y'all want equality, but wants less responsibility. That's bullshit. That's real.

So is reverse racism a thing or nah?

You tell me. Racism is based on one race believing it has superiority over another.

Since we as black folk never had superiority over anyone in this country, how can we be racist? We can be predjudiced....we can be bigoted...but racist? Not by dictionary standards.

Besides, your red herring is doing nothing more but skirting the point.

Oh, so reverse racism is not real, but men's rights are being taken away...

like the right to... what exactly?

What's the point?

Red herring tho? Lol so dramatic.

 

[Chi Snow]

Any new developments?

 

[Mister B.]

Oh, so reverse racism is not real, but men's rights are being taken away...

like the right to... what exactly?

What's the point?

Red herring tho? Lol so dramatic.

Try paternity issues, domestic violence against men, disproportional jail sentences, men's health, and others.

I would ask you to read THIS, but that might be doing too much....

Any new developments?

Nope.

And now, I'm out.

 

[2stepz_ahead]

Any new developments?

dey still wrong

 

[blackrain]

Here in Travis County they just released a statement that over 800 rape kits were found with mold on them

That's 800 victims that will never see justice

That's potentially 800 rapists walking free to rape again

They system is so fucked up too. How do you hold on to potential evidence of a rape so long MOLD grows in it ????

Between this type of bs and the fact that according to this thread the victims are doubted before they even report it .... y'all expect all victims to come forward ???

Does that even concern you at all ???

Seems like some of the men are more concerned with the 1 guy falsely accused. Not convicted ... accused....instead of the 799 victims that will never see justice.

Most likely not one of those cases are going to get a conviction.

But but but...I thought if you report it right away then you get an automatic conviction

 

[7figz]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

 

[Westie]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

I agree with everything you stated for the most part.

The problem is, a lot of people say that victims who don't come forward right away are less believable. It's been Implied in this thread.

Why is it though, you feel that people accused of rape should be protected? Because of the stigma? Do you feel the same way about accused murderers or anybody committing a crime? Because I don't recall seeing anyone's identity protected aside from minors when it comes to them Being accused of committing crimes.

 

[7figz]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

I agree with everything you stated for the most part.

The problem is, a lot of people say that victims who don't come forward right away are less believable. It's been Implied in this thread.

Why is it though, you feel that people accused of rape should be protected? Because of the stigma? Do you feel the same way about accused murderers or anybody committing a crime? Because I don't recall seeing anyone's identity protected aside from minors when it comes to them Being accused of committing crimes.

Honestly people are going to doubt whatever they want so fuck the doubt. It's all about the evidence, and as time passes there's probably more chance for the evidence to be lost - that's where the bigger problem is.

As far as the accused being protected, it's because it's not proven yet. Once it's proven it's whatever. If they can protect the accuser's identity, they should also be able to protect the accused. As far as comparing it to other crimes, they already treat rape differently by protecting the accuser, so why not ?

Think of the instances where it's proven false, and the accused's reputation is fucked up. And add that to the false accuser probably won't even face a penalty.

 

[Westie]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

I agree with everything you stated for the most part.

The problem is, a lot of people say that victims who don't come forward right away are less believable. It's been Implied in this thread.

Why is it though, you feel that people accused of rape should be protected? Because of the stigma? Do you feel the same way about accused murderers or anybody committing a crime? Because I don't recall seeing anyone's identity protected aside from minors when it comes to them Being accused of committing crimes.

Honestly people are going to doubt whatever they want so fuck the doubt. It's all about the evidence, and as time passes there's probably more chance for the evidence to be lost - that's where the bigger problem is.

As far as the accused being protected, it's because it's not proven yet. Once it's proven it's whatever. If they can protect the accuser's identity, they should also be able to protect the accused. As far as comparing it to other crimes, they already treat rape differently by protecting the accuser, so why not ?

Think of the instances where it's proven false, and the accused's reputation is fucked up. And add that to the false accuser probably won't even face a penalty.

Well they protect the accusers identity because they are the assumed Victim of a crime. An assumed perpetrator doesn't get that courtesy. I just don't understand what the difference would be because if you are assumed to be a murderer your reputation will be scarred no matter what. Look at OJ.

the news reports on crime stories all the time, and reports on the names. The likelihood that someone is being accused of rape falsely is small percentage so why should everyone get that protection? If you think that no one's business should be published I would understand. But just for the specific type of crime there's a problem?

 

[2stepz_ahead]

why are we still talking or thinking anyone wants the accused protected.....

all we are saying is let the nigga have his day in court.

i think we got waaaaaay off topic.

 

[Westie]

why are we still talking or thinking anyone wants the accused protected.....

all we are saying is let the nigga have his day in court.

i think we got waaaaaay off topic.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

 

[2stepz_ahead]

why are we still talking or thinking anyone wants the accused protected.....

all we are saying is let the nigga have his day in court.

i think we got waaaaaay off topic.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

you proved nothing.

identity protected until proven guilty and protected from prosecution is two different things.

 

[7figz]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

I agree with everything you stated for the most part.

The problem is, a lot of people say that victims who don't come forward right away are less believable. It's been Implied in this thread.

Why is it though, you feel that people accused of rape should be protected? Because of the stigma? Do you feel the same way about accused murderers or anybody committing a crime? Because I don't recall seeing anyone's identity protected aside from minors when it comes to them Being accused of committing crimes.

Honestly people are going to doubt whatever they want so fuck the doubt. It's all about the evidence, and as time passes there's probably more chance for the evidence to be lost - that's where the bigger problem is.

As far as the accused being protected, it's because it's not proven yet. Once it's proven it's whatever. If they can protect the accuser's identity, they should also be able to protect the accused. As far as comparing it to other crimes, they already treat rape differently by protecting the accuser, so why not ?

Think of the instances where it's proven false, and the accused's reputation is fucked up. And add that to the false accuser probably won't even face a penalty.

Well they protect the accusers identity because they are the assumed Victim of a crime. An assumed perpetrator doesn't get that courtesy. I just don't understand what the difference would be because if you are assumed to be a murderer your reputation will be scarred no matter what. Look at OJ.

the news reports on crime stories all the time, and reports on the names. The likelihood that someone is being accused of rape falsely is small percentage so why should everyone get that protection? If you think that no one's business should be published I would understand. But just for the specific type of crime there's a problem?

Actually I do think that people accused of crimes should be protected. There's no need for police to be posting MFs' mugshots on the internet just cause some flunky ass cop arrested them. That should even go without saying in a country that's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty".

As far as the statistics of false-rape, it's probably smaller but who would know since there's no requirement for stats or mandatory prosecution of false-rape accusers. That's irrelevant though to not putting the accused's name out there. An equal and very logical question would be why wouldn't you want the person's identity accused of a crime to be protected ?

Regarding OJ (just to entertain the example even though it's not my line of reasoning) - if we're going to say that your rep is going to be scarred no matter what so fuck it, then we wouldn't be protecting the victim's identity either I guess.

 

[Westie]

why are we still talking or thinking anyone wants the accused protected.....

all we are saying is let the nigga have his day in court.

i think we got waaaaaay off topic.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

you proved nothing.

identity protected until proven guilty and protected from prosecution is two different things.

That's what I was referring to what do you think I'm saying?

 

[Westie]

Hostile for nothing. relax pralims

 

[konceptjones]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

I agree with everything you stated for the most part.

The problem is, a lot of people say that victims who don't come forward right away are less believable. It's been Implied in this thread.

Why is it though, you feel that people accused of rape should be protected? Because of the stigma? Do you feel the same way about accused murderers or anybody committing a crime? Because I don't recall seeing anyone's identity protected aside from minors when it comes to them Being accused of committing crimes.

Honestly people are going to doubt whatever they want so fuck the doubt. It's all about the evidence, and as time passes there's probably more chance for the evidence to be lost - that's where the bigger problem is.

As far as the accused being protected, it's because it's not proven yet. Once it's proven it's whatever. If they can protect the accuser's identity, they should also be able to protect the accused. As far as comparing it to other crimes, they already treat rape differently by protecting the accuser, so why not ?

Think of the instances where it's proven false, and the accused's reputation is fucked up. And add that to the false accuser probably won't even face a penalty.

Well they protect the accusers identity because they are the assumed Victim of a crime. An assumed perpetrator doesn't get that courtesy. I just don't understand what the difference would be because if you are assumed to be a murderer your reputation will be scarred no matter what. Look at OJ.

the news reports on crime stories all the time, and reports on the names. The likelihood that someone is being accused of rape falsely is small percentage so why should everyone get that protection? If you think that no one's business should be published I would understand. But just for the specific type of crime there's a problem?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/21016808/false-rape-claims-devastating-say-wrongly-accused
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ns_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/08/rocks...mpact-of-wrongful-accusation-of-rape-5739448/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/son-12-how-can-rapist-7639672
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-false-accusations-destroy-lives/article/2557145

That's why. It makes no sense to name the person accused publicly for something as heinous as rape. This is a whole different category of crime where just the accusation alone can completely destroy your life. A nigga can bounce back from being accused of murder, drug dealing, RICO Act shits, robbery, arson, whatever.. but rape??? You might as well go find a chick to rape for real if you're ever accused of it. There's a shitton of cases all over the world that illustrate just what happens to a man accused of rape. You can lose everyone in your life, including family, just from being accused of rape. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, bruh man from Bachelor lost his job over that accusation.

Let the accused be convicted before naming him/her publicly.

 

[Westie]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

I agree with everything you stated for the most part.

The problem is, a lot of people say that victims who don't come forward right away are less believable. It's been Implied in this thread.

Why is it though, you feel that people accused of rape should be protected? Because of the stigma? Do you feel the same way about accused murderers or anybody committing a crime? Because I don't recall seeing anyone's identity protected aside from minors when it comes to them Being accused of committing crimes.

Honestly people are going to doubt whatever they want so fuck the doubt. It's all about the evidence, and as time passes there's probably more chance for the evidence to be lost - that's where the bigger problem is.

As far as the accused being protected, it's because it's not proven yet. Once it's proven it's whatever. If they can protect the accuser's identity, they should also be able to protect the accused. As far as comparing it to other crimes, they already treat rape differently by protecting the accuser, so why not ?

Think of the instances where it's proven false, and the accused's reputation is fucked up. And add that to the false accuser probably won't even face a penalty.

Well they protect the accusers identity because they are the assumed Victim of a crime. An assumed perpetrator doesn't get that courtesy. I just don't understand what the difference would be because if you are assumed to be a murderer your reputation will be scarred no matter what. Look at OJ.

the news reports on crime stories all the time, and reports on the names. The likelihood that someone is being accused of rape falsely is small percentage so why should everyone get that protection? If you think that no one's business should be published I would understand. But just for the specific type of crime there's a problem?

Actually I do think that people accused of crimes should be protected. There's no need for police to be posting MFs' mugshots on the internet just cause some flunky ass cop arrested them. That should even go without saying in a country that's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty".

As far as the statistics of false-rape, it's probably smaller but who would know since there's no requirement for stats or mandatory prosecution of false-rape accusers. That's irrelevant though to not putting the accused's name out there. An equal and very logical question would be why wouldn't you want the person's identity accused of a crime to be protected ?

Regarding OJ (just to entertain the example even though it's not my line of reasoning) - if we're going to say that your rep is going to be scarred no matter what so fuck it, then we wouldn't be protecting the victim's identity either I guess.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea to protect people who have been accused of crime across the board. I'm not against it. I was just asking the reasoning if it was only rape you're speaking of, but if we're talking about all crimes I actually agree.

 

[jetlifebih]

MGTOW, y'all.

You may think it's a silly concept, but that shit could've saved lives here.

Men go the over way sounds so fucking gay tho. And it's cac shit.

U either HOH or GMB

You ignoramus. MGTOW is "Men Going Their Own Way."

It doesn't mean you hate women, it means you're not subscribing the bullshit system that holds men down, especially when it comes to relationship issues. Y'all making it seem like MGTOWers can't fuck women or have wives. It just staying simp and sucka free. And you'd be surprised how many black men subscribe to the shit.

Besides, most of y'all muhfuckers on here would fail a HOH test. Half of y'all are white knights in disguise. Fuckin simp-ass moles.

Why do you need moral support for that?

Why not? It ain't like no one's giving fucks about Men's Rights otherwise. The world has most males painted as villains as soon as shit goes down before any questions are even asked. Dudes need all the support they can muster these days.

Lol nigga go your own way from round me

Don't worry. We do.

Females like you who walk around like your snatch is diamond-encrusted get never what you really want: attention by the barrel-full.

You have at it, boss lady.

Lol

What do you mean by walk around like your snatch is diamond-encrusted???

The following isnt directly towards you ....

But why do some men take issue a woman who is outwardly confident and knows her self worth

Based off my own experiences they are either extremely insecure and or not happy with the state of their own lives

So maybe i answered my own question

I know there is a difference between being confident and a narcissistic, but from what I've observed the contempt is reserved for any woman who does not act like she is pressed for male approval or his approval in particular

Its especially bad when they see other men gravitating into the woman's orbit ...

Women are guilty too...but from what i observed some men just cannot handle it and even take pleasure in breaking women down...

What do you mean by that second part?

Are you saying men can't handle success from a female as good as women can accept success from a male?

@jetlifebih

Nah, she's just saying that some men are resentful towards women who reject them.......and then are even more upset when she shows interest in other men.

Basically just mad at women because they're not interested in them.

Also, to you it might seem like I'm "caping" for her or defending her.........but @Madame_CJSkywalker would probably think it's an example of benevolent sexism since I'm taking it upon myself to speak on her behalf by interpreting her response.

*double entendre*

lol na no caping

And yeah that's true and water is wet but women do it too

Are y'all saying women handle rejection better than men as well?

Not only that

I believe some men or rather a lot of ppl in general just have contempt for opinionated, outwardly confident woman ....

They dont even have to actually interested in a woman

It goes against the supposed natural order of things

They rather see a woman be meek and chill

Opposed to men who are taught and encouraged to being that alpha dog

Why do you think this is? Niggas just can't handle it?

Do the majority of women display this said outward confidence, and strong stance on opinions?

And what's wrong with being meek and chill ?

And if men are taught to be alphas then who the hell wants to bump heads with an alpha female all day besides a beta male?

Nothing wrong with being meek and chill

But not every women is built that way... Like just not every man is inclined to be an alpha

Nothing wrong with that

But society likes to keep women and men in boxes

In concern to relationships are they are about compromise so that means sometimes as a man you have to yield to ur woman...and vice versa...shouldnt be a one way street

Some boxes are necessary but yeah nobody is the same

 

[Westie]

Going to repost this comment for the selective-reading types:

I don't think a reasonable person would disregard rape simply because of the length of time, moreso the provability (?) of it after such a long time.

And on another note, l would imagine less people would be against people who "come forward" if they protected the identity of the accused the way they do the accuser, in case it's proven false, and also punished false accusers appropriately.

... and furthermore, who in here is arguing that the system isn't flawed ? It seems to me that some are just willing to ignore and not discuss - the flaws that don't support their arguments.

I agree with everything you stated for the most part.

The problem is, a lot of people say that victims who don't come forward right away are less believable. It's been Implied in this thread.

Why is it though, you feel that people accused of rape should be protected? Because of the stigma? Do you feel the same way about accused murderers or anybody committing a crime? Because I don't recall seeing anyone's identity protected aside from minors when it comes to them Being accused of committing crimes.

Honestly people are going to doubt whatever they want so fuck the doubt. It's all about the evidence, and as time passes there's probably more chance for the evidence to be lost - that's where the bigger problem is.

As far as the accused being protected, it's because it's not proven yet. Once it's proven it's whatever. If they can protect the accuser's identity, they should also be able to protect the accused. As far as comparing it to other crimes, they already treat rape differently by protecting the accuser, so why not ?

Think of the instances where it's proven false, and the accused's reputation is fucked up. And add that to the false accuser probably won't even face a penalty.

Well they protect the accusers identity because they are the assumed Victim of a crime. An assumed perpetrator doesn't get that courtesy. I just don't understand what the difference would be because if you are assumed to be a murderer your reputation will be scarred no matter what. Look at OJ.

the news reports on crime stories all the time, and reports on the names. The likelihood that someone is being accused of rape falsely is small percentage so why should everyone get that protection? If you think that no one's business should be published I would understand. But just for the specific type of crime there's a problem?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/21016808/false-rape-claims-devastating-say-wrongly-accused
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ns_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/08/rocks...mpact-of-wrongful-accusation-of-rape-5739448/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/son-12-how-can-rapist-7639672
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-false-accusations-destroy-lives/article/2557145

That's why. It makes no sense to name the person accused publicly for something as heinous as rape. This is a whole different category of crime where just the accusation alone can completely destroy your life. A nigga can bounce back from being accused of murder, drug dealing, RICO Act shits, robbery, arson, whatever.. but rape??? You might as well go find a chick to rape for real if you're ever accused of it. There's a shitton of cases all over the world that illustrate just what happens to a man accused of rape. You can lose everyone in your life, including family, just from being accused of rape. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, bruh man from Bachelor lost his job over that accusation.

Let the accused be convicted before naming him/her publicly.

LOL listen if you think rape is so heinous why haven't you bothered to research how actual rape victims feel or how are they are affected?

so in your opinion rape is worse than murder?