[ SECRET POST #2406 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2406 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 077 secrets from Secret Submission Post #344.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

op

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that's precisely it. I'd say "inb4 people dismissing it because of 'lack of evidence/she dropped the charges' (while simultaneously going 'but he's so hoooot' (because wow attractive and wealthy men have never silenced these kinds of accusations before)" but uh....

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

Remember, Guilty Until Proven Innocent! Also "Sure There Is No Evidence OR History of Violent Behavior, COMPLETE AND TOTAL RUMORS=FACT!!!"

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

I'm never going to be sorry for siding with survivors and potential survivors.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

How about liars?

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

I will never be sorry for being on the side of survivors and the wrongly accused.

False accusations undermine the credibility of claims made by real survivors and also have a negative impact on public funds granted to survivor centers. What she did wasn't just morally wrong in the sense that she wanted to hurt his career or get attention for herself, it was wrong because she's hurting real survivors. You're on her side? Then you are NOT on the side of survivors.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

+1

False accusations hurt real victims.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

so tell me how to differentiate between the two? you literally can't.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

Alright, I accuse you of domestic violence.

Now hate yourself. GO.

There's a difference between guilty and accused. My brother was in court for ten years become some cunt tried to squeeze money out of my parents. My brother was 14 at the time and I've never known a more model citizen. He's one of those disgustingly straight and narrow, super nice people. I am not, but the point is that people lie and they do it for potential profit. Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

What he guy above me said is absolutely correct. Taking this stance does not help actual victims or survivors or whatever's trendy to call them these days.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

This reminds me of a guy in high school who was charged as a sex offender. He and this girl in our school had been together since middle school and her parents hated him. When he turned 18, her paretns told the police that he was sleeping with their daughter who was 17 (she's only like 3 months younger than him, too). And he was actually tried and convicted and sentenced to 12 weeks community service and he has to do all the registering and stuff that sex offenders do like when they move. The parents were stupid to do it because their daughter won't have anything to do with them and they've met their grandkids that their daughter has with the guy they accused of being a sex offender.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that you will support anyone who says, "I'VE BEEN RAPED/ABUSED," regardless whether there's any evidence to support their claims, demonstrates that you care less about survivors than you do about self-aggrandizement and the abstract notion of a cause.

There are people out there who make false accusations. When I was in high school, it was common for 14- and 15-year-old girls to go after older guys and then joke about using statutory rape to "pay them back" if they did something to piss them off. You've just said that you would side with them.

And that's both ridiculous and detrimental to the actual cause.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

Half agreeing with nonny I'm replying to:
There's nothing wrong with supporting any person claiming abuse. There are tons of things that can be done that don't require the accusation to be true. Be part of an open, supportive environment. Contribute to charities that offer counselling. Lend your own ear. Be supportive of the survivor's needs, large and small, that can arise before and during recovery.

All of these things, of course, are much more work than getting outraged about a case you know nearly nothing about. Or, you know, people looking at the actual nuanced problem of an entire class of hard to persecute crimes, and the implications of that difficulty of proof.

It's always easier to pretend there's a cut and dry answer to this shit; but of course if you're looking for a cut and dry answer you're not looking for an actual solution.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

Echoing everyone about false accusations hurting actual survivors.

Potential survivors are not the same as liars; potential survivors are people who have not been abused but are in a position where they are likely to be. I'm on their side just as much as actual survivors and will do anything I can to keep them from becoming abused.

People who lie about being abused use resources meant for people who are abused and those are very limited in many places.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

But he's not hot. And there wasn't any evidence. And she did drop the charges. And she's made false accusations before.

Look, I'd be willing to believe her despite the lack of evidence and history of false accusations if only she'd claimed he'd done things that wouldn't necessarily leave wounds. But what she did claim was mostly stuff that would have left her a bloody and bruised mess that would have required medical attention IF she survived. And yet...

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

She didn't report it immediately, but when she did, she was granted a restraining order by the courts. Those are not just handed out like candy. Someone on a legal end of things saw enough evidence to conclude he was a danger to her. She later dismissed the restraining order when they resumed their relationship, which also ended her legal suit against him.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

And she never needed medical treatment why?

In LA County, there is no legal requirement for evidence of the person requesting a restraining order being in danger.

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

TROs are actually fairly easy to obtain. And sorry, no evidence and no repeat instances from Fassbender? Not going to to believe it. Especially since that kind of abuse would have required at least a hospital visit.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

She may not have reported it immediately but she'd have to see a doctor and she was never treated for any of the injuries she says he inflicted on her. Burst ovarian cyst? No doctor visit. Blown out kneecap? No visit to the doctor. Broke her nose? Again, no doctor visit and no change in her appearance. Hmmm....

Re: op

[poisonenvy]

In all fairness to the broken nose, I'm fairly sure I broke my nose in a mosh pit once. It only bled for about five minutes, so I didn't think it was anything, but then next day I had two black eyes, and now I have a small bump in my nose. Said bump in the nose isn't noticable unless I point it out, and doesn't show up at all in photos.

But the rest? Yeeaahhhh, would have definitely needed medical attention of some sort.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

DA: I have had one of my cysts burst, it's fucking agonising and often mimics appendicitis (in fact 3 of the 9 women on the Appi ward were found to have had that) so if that had happened she most definitely would have needed someone to check her over to be sure it wasn't that.

And only a laparoscopy can pick up on a burst cyst. Even with ultrasound, which is usually done before a laproscopy, all they can do is guess after seeing fluid and since fluid is also present with appendicitis she would be admitted to hospital.

Burst cysts don't always require treatment but they a) require medical expertise and equipment to diagnose and b) can be extremely agonising and c) mimic appendicitis.

That's without going into the others...

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

But restraining orders are handed out like candy. And she's the one who chose to ignore it. It's probably because being with him got her more exposure in the long run.

Re: op

[insanenoodlyguy]

You have no fucking idea how the legal system works at all.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

I am a rape survivor who was denied twice for a restraining order until he brought a gun until my place of work (which was for the state, which is the only reason they found against him, according to the judge) so how about you shut the fuck up

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

All you have to do is convince a judge you are afraid for your health and safety in the presence of another person. It's not that hard. It might as well be candy.

If you lie, you can go up for slander and lying in the court of law, but that doesn't stop people from doing it anyway.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

I read an article that said that the day she gave as the date of the assault was a day that Fassbender could prove he was not at the location she claimed the assault had taken place in.

Re: op

[(Anonymous)]

NO FACTS! ONLY FEELS!!!!!