My post on Kenneth Moreno And Franklin Mata led to an interesting flamewar in the comments. Normally, I don't bother arguing with fools, but I wanted to see how persistent the pro-State troll would be.
That post ranks high in Google now. A pro-State troll was very hostile, because I sided with the victims/defendants. It is possible that the lawyer representing the accuser in the upcoming civil lawsuit was the one leaving hostile comments.
Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata were acquitted of rape but convicted of "official misconduct" (a misdemeanor). They were fired after the verdict was announced. Until then, they were on "paid leave". Due to police unions, whenever a policeman is accused of doing something wrong, he gets a paid vacation until the investigation is over. The "official misconduct" conviction automatically disqualifies them from working as a policeman, so the city can finally fire them.
One interesting thing I've learned from blogging is "The more negative comments a post receives, the more important the subject." The flamewar in the comments convinces me that false rape accusation are a serious problem.
I was surprised by the severity of the pro-State trolling. I can't say that the policemen were wrongfully accused, without being a misogynist and rapist? It's wrong for me to say "WTF? There's insufficient evidence!"? That's pretty severe misandry.
My point is that State law is biased against men. It is very easy for a woman to make a false rape claim or false sexual harassment claim. Instead of "innocent until proven guilty", it's "guilty unless proven innocent".
My other point is "It takes more than the testimony of a drunk woman, to send someone to jail for a false rape conviction."
Divorce law is another area of law with anti-male bias. With "no fault" divorce laws, there's a huge financial incentive for a woman to cheat a man.
Suppose I enter a contract with you. You can break the contract, but I still have to pay you. What kind of idiot would make such a contract? Due to State law, every marriage contract can be arbitrarily broken by the woman. Your wife can have an affair, get pregnant with another man, divorce you, and you still owe her alimony and child support? What kind of idiot would make such a one-sided unfair contract?
You still can get married, but you have to choose *REALLY* carefully. If your wife is playing the parasite role in the marriage, you *WILL* almost definitely be cheated.
Many State propagandists say "All types of rape are equivalent." Biden said "Rape is rape is rape." This is false. For "date rape", the woman is partially responsible, because she made bad decisions. That isn't morally equivalent to forcibly raping a stranger. There's a lot of State propaganda, that forcible rape is equivalent to situations where the woman is partially responsible.
You have to be responsible for where you go and who you hang out with. You have to be responsible to make sure you don't get too drunk. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pro-State trolling.
This is an important point. People say "I'll complain to the State when something bad happens!" rather than "I'll have individual responsibility for what I do. I'll be careful to avoid situations where something bad might happen."
There are many scenarios that the State falsely treats as rape:
- A woman consents and later changes her mind.
- A woman gets severely drunk.
- A woman acts like she isn't sure what she wants, and the man is too aggressive.
- statutory rape
- A woman is forcibly raped by a stranger.
- A man slips a drug in a woman's drink.
One particularly evil type of rape claim is when a woman consents and later changes her mind. If the man says "She consented!" and the woman says "I didn't consent!", that's clearly insufficient evidence.
I also reject the legal principle of "too drunk to consent". Try an equivalent argument, "The drunk driver is not responsible, because he was too drunk to know what he was doing." That's silly. You are responsible for the decision to get drunk. If you are planning to get drunk, make sure there are arrangements for someone to take you home.
Now, a pro-State troll says "FSK likes raping drunk women." That is false. Alcohol breath is disgusting. I can point out this is irresponsible drunkard behavior, without exploiting drunk women.
Why should a woman be so eager to support the false accuser in the Moreno/Mata trial? Unless you're an irresponsible drunkard, the acquittal should not offend you. If you aren't an irresponsible alcoholic, you won't have the same problem as the false accuser.
Another false rape scenario is when the woman acts inconsistently. A woman says "no", but she's emotionally sort of interested. This comes back to another point, "Everyone is a little crazy!" Most people don't have the logical and emotional parts of their brain synchronized. A woman might logically resist, while being emotionally interested.
In such a scenario, the guy may be too aggressive. I would not do that. State law is so messed up that you have to be careful.
However, this is a very important point. A woman can logically not be attracted to you, even if she's emotionally somewhat interested. It's better to avoid crazy people. However, everyone does this to some extent. It was shocking to notice that most people (men and women) have an emotional mental state that doesn't match their logical mental state.
It also was shocking to realize that a woman can say "I'm not interested!", even if she is sort of interested. Looking back, I wasn't as persistent as I should have been. Still, you have to be careful.
For example, if a woman says "I have a boyfriend!" out of context, does that mean she isn't interested? Or, does it mean she is interested because you made her start thinking of her boyfriend? Is she telling you to leave her alone? Is she thinking of upgrading? It depends on the context. Before I cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I would only listen to what a woman said and not notice the body language. It was confusing, that they were frequently the opposite.
However, State law and State brainwashing are pretty harsh. If you're dealing with a situation where what a woman says and her body language are opposite, you have to be very careful.
"Statutory rape" is another example of false rape. If you're biologically an adult you should be treated as an adult. The State and State schools force people ages 13-21 to be treated as children.
A pro-State troll says "This proves FSK wants to rape 14 year old girls!" I can point out that a law is stupid, without breaking that law. Given that the law is crazy, I avoid anyone under 18.
This story was offensive. "Women's rights groups" protested the jury acquittal. Why aren't some "men's rights groups" protesting that two men were falsely accused, lost their jobs, and had their reputation ruined based on zero evidence? I have better things to do than attend a protest.
Look at the picture in the above article (this one). The spin is "Look at all those angry women." It's only 50 people, out of 7M+ people living in NYC. That isn't an overwhelming show of support.
Those could be friends of the accuser. They could be professional protesters, hired by her lawyer, to create a favorable impression for her $50M+ civil lawsuit.
This comes back to another point. Evil people will organize and lobby, to manipulate the State. An intelligent person has better things to do. Even if 10,000 women attended the anti-male rally, that's still a minority of people in NYC. However, it would be hyped in the mainstream media as evidence of how women should be angry at men.
This NY Times article was offensive. It's a narrative, told from the viewpoint of a woman similar to the accuser, that she's angry over the acquittal. If you don't read it carefully, you might think the woman is the accuser. How is this "news" and not propaganda? Why not tell the narrative of a man, angry how the policeman were falsely accused of rape, after he had once been falsely accused himself? The narrative of the incident is to reinforce that women should have no personal responsibility, and complain to the State when something bad happens after they do something stupid and irresponsible.
There's another disturbing aspect of the story. The US mainstream media did not publish the name of the woman who made the false accusation. Even if you believe her version of the story, she's an irresponsible woman with a drinking problem. Any future employer or boyfriend should know.
By protecting her "privacy", the mainstream media encourages false accusations. Moreno and Mata's reputation was ruined, even before they were convicted of "official misconduct" but acquitted of rape. It's unfair to publish the names of the victims/defendants, but not the accuser.
I did some googling, to try and find out the name of the false accuser, but could not find it. It isn't illegal to publish the name of a woman who makes a false rape accusation. However, the mainstream media colludes to enforce this rule. If I had a mainstream media job, I'd be fired for breaking it.
Does anyone know the name of the scumbag accuser in the Moreno and Mata case? I could not find it anywhere.
Even if the jury had voted "guilty" for rape, I still would have believed it was a false accusation. There clearly was insufficient evidence. Without the false rape accusation, nobody would have cared about "official misconduct". I suspect that policemen fake records all the time. They shouldn't do that, but the State bureaucracy makes it necessary. For example, the NYPD recently had a "ticket quota, arrest quota" scandal.
This could be an example of "No good deed goes unpunished." The policemen were concerned about her and decided to check up on her. They faked the records so they could do this. The accuser is getting even with all the men who had sex with her while she was drunk, and she never saw them again.
Consider the opposite headline "Police took a drunk woman back to her apartment. They left her alone. She choked and drowned on her own vomit. What were those policemen doing?"
The woman probably a false memory of being raped by the policeman. Her lawyer might have encouraged her to have the false memory. Her lawyer probably coached her on what she should say. She might be confused with all the other times she came home drunk with a man, and she never saw him again.
There are plenty of men who would have a one night stand with a drunk woman, and then never call her again because she's a useless tramp. I'd never do that. If you're an irresponsible woman there are plenty of men willing to exploit you. That woman doesn't have the names of other men who took advantage of her stupidity, but she does know which policemen took her back to her apartment.
I still say that Mata is a decent guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He did what his more senior partner asked him to do. Moreno seems like a sleazy character, but not a rapist. If I were judge in a free market court, I'd award her $50k-$100k (paid by Moreno and not the NYPD).
The woman has a pending civil lawsuit against the city, for $50M+! She has a financial incentive to lie. She's an irresponsible drunkard, and now she's trying to hit the State lawsuit lottery.
A $50M+ civil lawsuit seems like flagrant golddigging. Moreno probably could have shot and killed her for only $10M! I would not award huge civil damages, because the woman is partially responsible. I would award some damages, because Moreno did some stupid things (but not rape).
I support compensation-based justice and not punishment-based justice. There's no point in sending Moreno or Mata to jail. It would be reasonable to order Moreno to pay reasonable compensation to the accuser ($50k-$100k). A $50M+ lawsuit against the city government is silly.
Even if there was proof of rape, $50M in damages is excessive. Since she didn't get a STD or get pregnant, a fine of more than $250k seems excessive.
As I mentioned before, suing the government is pointless. If the woman wins a $50M+ verdict, every taxpayer in NYC pays higher taxes to compensate. Why should I pay $10 more in taxes, to give this irresponsible woman a windfall?
As part of their NYPD employment agreement and union contract, the State agrees to reimburse them for any claims. The woman is not suing Moreno and Mata as individuals. She's suing the government. Any verdict is not deducted from NYPD salaries. It's paid from the city's general fund. I'm going to pay higher taxes, to pay for any financial windfall earned by the scumbag woman and her lawyers.
It's also an awkward contradiction for State lawyers. First, the State was arguing that Moreno and Mata raped her and belong in jail. Now, in the civil lawsuit, State lawyers are required to argue that they didn't rape her.
Also, Moreno and Mata already suffered a huge loss. They lost their jobs and pensions. That's a bigger loss for Moreno than Mata, because he's older. For a State employee, the juicy pension is a large component of your salary.
A policeman job is very lucrative financial, both in salary and benefits and pension. Suppose an NYPD policeman could sell the right to his job to someone else? How much would that be worth? It'd be worth a lot. Policeman is a high-pay low-skill job.
If you want to work as a policeman, you have to work for the State. The State has a monopoly for selling police protection. The NYPD won't hire them back, and no other city will hire them. However, they probably will find a job as private security guards.
An incident like this one could not happen with free market police. First, there would be more precautions to make sure the police didn't do anything that appears improper. Second, there would be a clear agreement, regarding service if you're severely drunk. For example, a policeman could stay with you all night, and then send you a bill for $500-$1000. In the present, the policemen had a problem. They wanted to stay with the woman and help her, but they also had other responsibilities.
Free market police may have a policy of "wear a camera at all times", so they can be exonerated when falsely accused. Some police departments are experimenting with such cameras, but they "mysteriously malfunction" whenever the policeman is accused of doing something wrong.
Also, with free market police, if you thought that police vendor X was irresponsible, then you can fire them. In the present, even if you're outraged by the acquittal, you can't fire the NYPD. The only way to boycott the NYPD is to stop paying taxes. If you stop paying taxes, an NYPD policeman will come to kidnap you or take away your stuff.
State police have a monopoly. This encourages irresponsible police behavior. The real evil is the State police monopoly, and not anything any individual policeman does.
I believe in compensation-based justice and not punishment-based justice. There's no point sending Moreno and Mata to prison. They are not at risk for being repeat offenders. They already suffered a huge financial loss. As a free market judge, I'd award small compensation to the woman, paid by Moreno. A $50M+ lawsuit is silly. Obviously, the woman seeks to hit the financial lottery. $50M is a disproportionate award, compared to any injury, even if he did have sex with her while drunk. There's insufficient proof.
I was surprised that the mainstream media is uniformly saying "Duh! They raped her!", rather than "Duh! There's no evidence!" The completely one-sided coverage makes my "conspiracy spider sense" suspect that was a false accusation.
Some pro-State trolls say "Moreno confessed!" Actually, he denied it many times, and then finally told her what she wanted to hear so she would leave. Moreno didn't know she was wearing a wire. Moreno certainly is an idiot. He thought he could dissaude her from filing a complaint, while she'd already filed a complaint and lawyered up. Her lawyer probably helped her prepare to extract the false confession from Moreno.
Here's the full transcript of the taped "confession". When you read the whole thing, and not just excepts, it doesn't look as bad. Plus, that's just a transcript. You'd have to listen to it and hear voice inflection. The mainstream media quoted the "confession" out of context, by publishing the most incriminating excerpt.
Sentencing hasn't occurred yet. The mainstream media is pressuring the judge to make the "Acquitted Conduct Sentencing" error. The mainstream media is saying "The judge should consider that the policemen were accused of rape but acquitted, when determining the sentence." That is false. The judge should only consider the charges for which they were convicted. With misdemeanor convictions and no criminal history, the judge probably should choose probation, maybe some "community service", maybe a fine, but no prison time.
The Moreno and Mata false accusation is interesting. It shows that State "anti-male bias" lie is more important than the lie of "absolute immunity for police". It's more important for the State to portray men as evil, than it is to say that policemen get immunity.
You might wonder "Why is an anarchist defending a policeman?" I'm offended at all people who are victims of State abuse.
Also, I was wrongfully accused of sexual harassment at a job. I was fired without any due process. As an "at will" employee, I had no legal recourse. That makes me sympathetic to other people who are falsely accused. If there are going to be lots of false accusations, then it's not surprising that the victims are sympathetic to each other.
I'm surprised by the State propaganda surrounding Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata. It seems like an obvious false rape accusation based on insufficient evidence.
State law is biased against men. State law is biased against individual responsibility. Marriage law is biased against men. Many non-crimes are falsely categorized as rape. Everyone has individual responsibility for what they do. You shouldn't be an irresponsible drunkard and later file a false rape claim.
On "Kenneth Moreno And Franklin Mata", the pro-State trolling was severe and persistent. Based on that, I see that anti-male State law is an important subjects. False rape accusations are a serious problem.