Tell us, are you changing horses in mid-stream, engaging in straw man, or just not bother to read the post to which you replied?
In the post to which you replied, s2v16 puts forth an hypothetical course of events that could have let to the divergent stories of the parties.
In that hypothetical situation is the following:
They both go up to her room. They talk for a while, they start making out on the bed. He starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him.
In that situation, the one to which your replied, it is stated explicitly that the parties were initially in mutually welcome contact. However, you are not arguing against this. You are effectively stating that we should accept that what she has said occurred happened exactly as she stated and we have no reason to do so. If you have any reason we should do so, besides the fact that she is a woman and is making the claim, I would love to hear it.
I would also like you to confine your arguments to the situation to which you replied, but I seriously doubt that will happen.
You should learn the meaning of the term. He didn't expose criminal activity, waste, fraud, or abuse. He abused the trust his country put in him and his security clearance to take classified documents concerning secret programs which were authorized by and deemed legal by Congress and the court system, went to a foreign country with those documents, provided those documents and interviews about secret programs to a newspaper of the third country, and in the process damaged the national security, political capital, and reputation of his country. He has purposefully tried to damage the relationship and balance of power between his country and the country he fled to, a country known for launching cyber-attacks on his country, for his own gain. He stated that his country "was worth dying for", yet fled his country, provided the information to a news outlet in a foreign nation, and is seeking protection from other competitor nations to avoid prosecution.
His actions are not of a whistleblowing patriot. They are the actions of an arrogant, amateur, traitorous, free-lance espionage agent.
So, the evidence shows who attacked whom? For all you know, the "physically weaker" person launched a sneak attack on the "physically stronger" person using a weapon, say a coffee cup to the head from behind.
You want an explanation? He is invited up to the room. He misunderstand her invitation. She rejects him. He calls her a teasing bitch. Insulted and pissed off, when he turns to pick up his jacket from the bed, she grabs a coffee cup and hits him in the side of the head with it. He goes down, she presses her attack and he defends himself. He is able to grab his stuff and inadvertently grabs some of her stuff too and make his way out of the room. She claims he tried to rape her to cover her ass.
Your argument requires law enforcement not only failing to do a proper job but actually destroying evidence. To me, it sounds like you have watched too much TV and are biased against police seeing them as incompetent at best and malicious malingerers at worst.
Do you even understand what you are saying? She said "no". That means, no touching. It sure as hell is attempted rape when he continues the "handsy" business.
In some cultures, it is expect that a woman will say that even if she wants it to continue. You also seem to have missed the part in the example where they are "making out" on the bed, thus touching. And, there is no guarantee how the "no" was stated or taken. The "no" could have been taken as "no, don't do stick your hands down my pants" and, because they continued to kiss, he tried something else such as sticking his hands up her shirt. At that point, she might have, as the GP states, "physically assaulted" him.
As to him being in her room, you are assuming that her physical attack to him becoming "handsy" during the make-out session wasn't to hit him with the coffee cup. From his point of view, things could have gone from making out with a cute woman to having same said woman trying to kill him.
So, he starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him. He then does or says that she dislikes (moves his hands down her pants, says something offensive in her ear), and then, pay attention, she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever. And then he loses his temper, and hits her. Maybe the violence continues in some way, maybe not, he eventually leaves.
So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure. But rape? No.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever.
At that point it would be assault and/or battery depending on local laws.
So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure.
Why is it, in your example, that it is only assault when he hits her? Hitting her back could be an act of self-defense on his part, especially if her initial assault involved the coffee cup mentioned in her account.
You forgot: Woman gets drunk and invites man up to her room. They get along and sex starts. Woman has second thoughts, discovers he is involved with someone else, etc and decides to put a stop to it by clocking man in the head with a coffee cup and claiming rape to protect her reputation.
Actually, we don't know that. All we know is what she said. We have only one side of the story and it could be completely false from the point he enters the room to the time he leaves.
Far be it from me to point out that the "article" is just her blog post of what she says happened. They might have been interested in pursuing the case, but didn't have enough evidence, which is very likely because there were no other witnesses and both had injuries consisten with a fight. And, some or all of the reason they might not have been interested in pursuing the case is that they had a better case of battery and/or attempted murder against her than of attempted rape against him.
So, what you are saying is they should have arrested and tried him for suspicion of rape and not her for battery with a deadly weapon and attempted murder for hitting him in the head with a coffee mug? After all, there are two stories here. Hers and his. She has a black eye and a story of attempted rape. He has a story to go along with the bleeding head wound that she states he had.
And he had a bleeding head wound from being struck in the head with a coffee mug. BTW, Constitution boy, why should he have to when we are all innocent until proven guilty. You know, unlike what you are doing right now which is assuming he is guilty and asking him to prove his innocence.
Kind of hard to prosecute a case where there is no evidence of rape, no witnesses, and the alleged attacker has escaped the room with bleeding head wound while she has a black eye. This is literally a case of he said, she said. Why should they take her word she fought off a rape attempt and not his word that she got mad at him, "pre-emptively attacked" him with a coffee mug when his back was turned, he fought her off and escaped the room?
It stopped being self defense when you stated you would repeated smash his head into a table until he blood spurted on your shirt.
...hit them first...defend themselves against a violent assault
If you hit them first, you are the one committing violent assault and the person you hit would be, according to you, well within their rights to beat you down and stomp you to death.
Read the fucking RFC, asshole. I included a link to it so you could see what the standard actually says. The meaning of the word "standard" doesn't change just because your are fanboy. Go home, shithead, you are a stupid hypocrite.
Maybe you should try reading the second link from the summary and take a look at the standard heads. What you would find is that the standard is "no-cache". Chrome and Firefox use the non-standard "no-store". But, guess which browser supports three different headers, and the only one to actually support the standard? IE.
If you are a sysadmin who hates his job and/or employer and you are worth your salt, you find a new job, leave, and let all the people you know why you left. Leave little notes on the system and in the documentation that lets your successor know why you left. You don't do petty, unethical, and possibly criminal things.
People who do that shit are the reason IT people have a bad reputation. Grow the fuck up, assholes. Either suck it and do your job or find a new job, quit, and leave them without stealing or destroying data or creating more problems for them and the person or people who will be replacing you.
Put a bunch of whiney, selfish, over-indulged, arrogant, ethically-challenged, over-grown children who never got over believing they are special and everyone is exactly equal because everyone gets a trophy and have a group history of disrespecting other people's work and money, "should be given the power to spend corporate money on research and development" which means no pre-spending oversight.
Slashdot Mirror
In the post to which you replied, s2v16 puts forth an hypothetical course of events that could have let to the divergent stories of the parties. In that hypothetical situation is the following:
They both go up to her room. They talk for a while, they start making out on the bed. He starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him.
In that situation, the one to which your replied, it is stated explicitly that the parties were initially in mutually welcome contact. However, you are not arguing against this. You are effectively stating that we should accept that what she has said occurred happened exactly as she stated and we have no reason to do so. If you have any reason we should do so, besides the fact that she is a woman and is making the claim, I would love to hear it.
I would also like you to confine your arguments to the situation to which you replied, but I seriously doubt that will happen.
You should learn the meaning of the term. He didn't expose criminal activity, waste, fraud, or abuse. He abused the trust his country put in him and his security clearance to take classified documents concerning secret programs which were authorized by and deemed legal by Congress and the court system, went to a foreign country with those documents, provided those documents and interviews about secret programs to a newspaper of the third country, and in the process damaged the national security, political capital, and reputation of his country. He has purposefully tried to damage the relationship and balance of power between his country and the country he fled to, a country known for launching cyber-attacks on his country, for his own gain. He stated that his country "was worth dying for", yet fled his country, provided the information to a news outlet in a foreign nation, and is seeking protection from other competitor nations to avoid prosecution.
His actions are not of a whistleblowing patriot. They are the actions of an arrogant, amateur, traitorous, free-lance espionage agent.
So, the evidence shows who attacked whom? For all you know, the "physically weaker" person launched a sneak attack on the "physically stronger" person using a weapon, say a coffee cup to the head from behind.
You want an explanation? He is invited up to the room. He misunderstand her invitation. She rejects him. He calls her a teasing bitch. Insulted and pissed off, when he turns to pick up his jacket from the bed, she grabs a coffee cup and hits him in the side of the head with it. He goes down, she presses her attack and he defends himself. He is able to grab his stuff and inadvertently grabs some of her stuff too and make his way out of the room. She claims he tried to rape her to cover her ass.
Your argument requires law enforcement not only failing to do a proper job but actually destroying evidence. To me, it sounds like you have watched too much TV and are biased against police seeing them as incompetent at best and malicious malingerers at worst.
No, you are just advocating that he be made a social and professional pariah without trial, with little evidence, based on the word of one person.
Do you even understand what you are saying? She said "no". That means, no touching. It sure as hell is attempted rape when he continues the "handsy" business.
In some cultures, it is expect that a woman will say that even if she wants it to continue. You also seem to have missed the part in the example where they are "making out" on the bed, thus touching. And, there is no guarantee how the "no" was stated or taken. The "no" could have been taken as "no, don't do stick your hands down my pants" and, because they continued to kiss, he tried something else such as sticking his hands up her shirt. At that point, she might have, as the GP states, "physically assaulted" him.
As to him being in her room, you are assuming that her physical attack to him becoming "handsy" during the make-out session wasn't to hit him with the coffee cup. From his point of view, things could have gone from making out with a cute woman to having same said woman trying to kill him.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever.
At that point it would be assault and/or battery depending on local laws.
So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure.
Why is it, in your example, that it is only assault when he hits her? Hitting her back could be an act of self-defense on his part, especially if her initial assault involved the coffee cup mentioned in her account.
You forgot: Woman gets drunk and invites man up to her room. They get along and sex starts. Woman has second thoughts, discovers he is involved with someone else, etc and decides to put a stop to it by clocking man in the head with a coffee cup and claiming rape to protect her reputation.
And, we should believe her why? Because she is a woman? Because women don't lie about rape?
Actually, we don't know that. All we know is what she said. We have only one side of the story and it could be completely false from the point he enters the room to the time he leaves.
Far be it from me to point out that the "article" is just her blog post of what she says happened. They might have been interested in pursuing the case, but didn't have enough evidence, which is very likely because there were no other witnesses and both had injuries consisten with a fight. And, some or all of the reason they might not have been interested in pursuing the case is that they had a better case of battery and/or attempted murder against her than of attempted rape against him.
So, what you are saying is they should have arrested and tried him for suspicion of rape and not her for battery with a deadly weapon and attempted murder for hitting him in the head with a coffee mug? After all, there are two stories here. Hers and his. She has a black eye and a story of attempted rape. He has a story to go along with the bleeding head wound that she states he had.
And he had a bleeding head wound from being struck in the head with a coffee mug. BTW, Constitution boy, why should he have to when we are all innocent until proven guilty. You know, unlike what you are doing right now which is assuming he is guilty and asking him to prove his innocence.
Kind of hard to prosecute a case where there is no evidence of rape, no witnesses, and the alleged attacker has escaped the room with bleeding head wound while she has a black eye. This is literally a case of he said, she said. Why should they take her word she fought off a rape attempt and not his word that she got mad at him, "pre-emptively attacked" him with a coffee mug when his back was turned, he fought her off and escaped the room?
...hit them first...defend themselves against a violent assault
If you hit them first, you are the one committing violent assault and the person you hit would be, according to you, well within their rights to beat you down and stomp you to death.
No, it was an attempted rape at a security con.
You sound like a violent paranoid psychopath.
No, you wouldn't.
bwahahahah. Oh, you post is soooo funny. I almost believed you were serious instead of a troll.
Because it contains classified information.
Read the fucking RFC, asshole. I included a link to it so you could see what the standard actually says. The meaning of the word "standard" doesn't change just because your are fanboy. Go home, shithead, you are a stupid hypocrite.
Maybe you should try reading the second link from the summary and take a look at the standard heads. What you would find is that the standard is "no-cache". Chrome and Firefox use the non-standard "no-store". But, guess which browser supports three different headers, and the only one to actually support the standard? IE.
If you are a sysadmin who hates his job and/or employer and you are worth your salt, you find a new job, leave, and let all the people you know why you left. Leave little notes on the system and in the documentation that lets your successor know why you left. You don't do petty, unethical, and possibly criminal things. People who do that shit are the reason IT people have a bad reputation. Grow the fuck up, assholes. Either suck it and do your job or find a new job, quit, and leave them without stealing or destroying data or creating more problems for them and the person or people who will be replacing you.
You don't know the meaning of the word "entrap", you stupid fuck.
No credible chain of custody, so anything they "preserved" is worthless.
Put a bunch of whiney, selfish, over-indulged, arrogant, ethically-challenged, over-grown children who never got over believing they are special and everyone is exactly equal because everyone gets a trophy and have a group history of disrespecting other people's work and money, "should be given the power to spend corporate money on research and development" which means no pre-spending oversight.
What could possibly go wrong?
Again, I suggest you check your local laws.
Oh, and how is this different from walking a drug detecting dog outside a suspected grow house?