E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

The Duke lacrosse team "rape" case, ten years later

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

It is easy to buy into the narrative of "good guys vs bad guys" when reading about crime stories. In my younger days, I certainly bought into it. And while most police and prosecutors are good people, there is no doubt that there are not only bad apples but openly evil people serving as both. Ten years ago my journey began in becoming much more skeptical of law enforcement and much more uncompromising on civil rights and due process.

March 13 was ten years since the fateful party that led to convicted murderer Crystal Gail Mangum fabricating charges of "rape" against the Duke "University" lacrosse team, and thoroughly corrupt prosecutor Mike Nifong pursuing a conviction despite knowing the charges were false and withholding evidence that proved the players were innocent in order to frame them for the fabricated "rape" that never happened.

Ann Coulter had some excellent observations shortly after the story broke. Here is one of the best:

You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don't hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money.

Obviously, no one deserves to be falsely accused of rape, and no one deserves to have a thoroughly corrupt prosecutor try to frame them for a "crime" that they not only did not commit, but never even happened. But if the Duke lacrosse team were respectable young men who did not hire women to take their clothes off for money, convicted murderer Crystal Gail Mangum would have never had the opportunity to fabricate allegations of "rape" against them.

But that is not the real story here. No, that would be the criminal actions Mike Nifong, especially intentionally hiding evidence that proved his victims were innocent. Nifong attempted to frame innocent men in order to advance his political career. He was disbarred, but served a pathetic one day in jail for his crimes against the Constitution.

Nifong is the worst actor, but not the only guilty party. The faculty of Duke so-called "University" openly went after innocent men for a "rape" that was fabricated out of thin air, and the administration (particularly Richard Brodhead) trampled over due process and civil rights by banning the men from campus. This was one of the most shameful debacles in the history of higher education.

The fabricated "rape" in 2006 serves as a reminder why we must never compromise on civil rights and due process, and how we must root out and expose corruption in the criminal justice system.

Previous Articles:

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.