This is logical, but it ignores how massively beloved globally Kobe was/is. As a sports figure he’s on par with LeBron, Messi, and Ronaldo. For no shortage of people around the world he has always been a deity and nothing will change that. The global narrative has been written in stone and it ignores June 2003 to March 2005 of his life.I think the overkill of adulation is going to hit that breaking point real soon and the pushback is going to be real. Let's not lose sight that Bryant was just a man. He happened to be good at his job but again, just a man. He's not quite Jesus Christ.
the "rapist' is misplaced. It should have been put on the forehead IMHO.![]()
![]()
Kobe Bryant mural defaced with 'rapist' hours after unveiling
An Austin mural honoring the late Kobe Bryant was defaced with the word "rapist" only hours after its unveiling. The artist told KVUE he has already fixed it.www.kvue.com
No doubt about that! You would be hard-pressed to find another human being that transcends such an enormous level of recognition and adoration. He just happens to be a massive generational star.This is logical, but it ignores how massively beloved globally Kobe was/is. As a sports figure he’s on par with LeBron, Messi, and Ronaldo. For no shortage of people around the world he has always been a deity and nothing will change that. The global narrative has been written in stone and it ignores June 2003 to March 2005 of his life.
A moment of silence was held before the Madrid derby today.
I wonder if they were trying to frame it over the 24, so it sort of reads like the name on his jersey? Either way, I thought it was nice of them to use purple.the "rapist' is misplaced. It should have been put on the forehead IMHO.
Entire post is one big 'yikes' but I've seen this sentiment a few times and it seems like some people are just operating off a different definition of rape. To reiterate, this is what Kobe said:...
I know you know that Kobe did not admit guilt and actually said he believed the entire encounter was consensual. It isn't ambiguous.
...
So you're saying if one partner thinks the encounter is rape then it's rape? Hmm.Entire post is one big 'yikes' but I've seen this sentiment a few times and it seems like some people are just operating off a different definition of rape. To reiterate, this is what Kobe said:
“Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.”
The way this should be translated is:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us wasn't rape, I recognize now that she thought it was rape at the time and still thinks it was rape."
Does that make it more clear? Who do you think should decide what is or isn't rape? The rapist or the person being raped?
It blows my mind that some people think that the only thing that can constitute sexual assault is the most malicious, violent rape and all other types of non-consent are some sort of benign misunderstanding.
He certainly has something in common with Christiano Ronaldo...Ronaldo
Definitionally, yes.So you're saying if one partner thinks the encounter is rape then it's rape? Hmm.
That’s actually the legal standard. Nailed it!So you're saying if one partner thinks the encounter is rape then it's rape? Hmm.
I just want to point out something with respect to this Kobe quote. When it was pointed out that he did make a public apology as part of that same quote which keeps getting redacted,, folks here belittled and dismissed it as something his lawyer wrote and read on his behalf in an effort to end the criminal case.Entire post is one big 'yikes' but I've seen this sentiment a few times and it seems like some people are just operating off a different definition of rape. To reiterate, this is what Kobe said:
“Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.”
The way this should be translated is:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us wasn't rape, I recognize now that she thought it was rape at the time and still thinks it was rape."
Does that make it more clear? Who do you think should decide what is or isn't rape? The rapist or the person being raped?
It blows my mind that some people think that the only thing that can constitute sexual assault is the most malicious, violent rape and all other types of non-consent are some sort of benign misunderstanding.
What is going on around here? Of course his lawyers wrote it and one read it. But at the same time uncorroborated confessions aren’t admissible to establish a conviction, even if he read it himself. You need the victim to establish the lack of consent element of the crime and she refused to testify. None of the evidence other than her statement establishes lack of consent. Can’t use the uncorroborated confession to get there. Let’s just make up the rules of evidence as we go along.FTR, I don't read that as an admission in any way. If it were, the prosecution should have re-arrested him and introduced it into evidence as such. Shit, a voluntary confession would be enough to convict, assuming the evidence is good, even without the victim's testimony. For me, I think his lawyer wrote it, his lawyer read it and it says just enough without saying too much (you know, how lawyers tend to write) and I'm honestly perplexed how deeply folks are looking into it, to the point where we are now saying he admitted he raped her.
You don't need a victim to testify in a rape/sexual assault case, even if the defense is contending the encounter was consensual. You can convict based on evidence alone. Sure, it's harder for the prosecution, but it's not impossible. You need a pretty air tight case on the evidence, but based on what folks are contending around here about the evidence in this case, it's open and shut, right? I haven't read up on the case law in many years, but IIRC, you can't rely solely on an extrajudicial confession to get a conviction, however, if you have substantial corroborating evidence underlying the confession, you can use it. If Myt1 was around, he'd probably remember the Latin term that I'm blanking on right now. And unless the Federal Rules of Evidence changed since I stopped going to court, Party Admissions are allowed, as are vicarious admissions made by an agent (ie. Kobe's lawyer) on behalf of a party, so we don't have any hearsay issues here either.What is going on around here? Of course his lawyers wrote it and one read it. But at the same time uncorroborated confessions aren’t admissible to establish a conviction, even if he read it himself. You need the victim to establish the lack of consent element of the crime and she refused to testify. None of the evidence other than her statement establishes lack of consent. Can’t use the uncorroborated confession to get there. Let’s just make up the rules of evidence as we go along.
There isn’t any corroborated evidence of the lack of consent without testimony from the victim and as far as I know, there weren’t any otherwise admissible statements from her about lack of consent. Also, I’d imagine that his defense team would raise a confrontation objection since his accuser is otherwise available to testify and the state could subpoena her but has chosen not to.You don't need a victim to testify in a rape/sexual assault case, even if the defense is contending the encounter was consensual. You can convict based on evidence alone. Sure, it's harder for the prosecution, but it's not impossible. You need a pretty air tight case on the evidence, but based on what folks are contending around here about the evidence in this case, it's open and shut, right? I haven't read up on the case law in many years, but IIRC, you can't rely solely on an extrajudicial confession to get a conviction, however, if you have substantial corroborating evidence underlying the confession, you can use it. If Myt1 was around, he'd probably remember the Latin term that I'm blanking on right now. And unless the Federal Rules of Evidence changed since I stopped going to court, Party Admissions are allowed, as are vicarious admissions made by an agent (ie. Kobe's lawyer) on behalf of a party, so we don't have any hearsay issues here either.
Again, my point isn't about Kobe's guilt or innocence, my point is that there are very, very conflicting views in this thread about how to interpret that statement. Was it truly an admission of guilt? Was it truly from Kobe himself? Are folks ignoring the parts they want to ignore, and paying attention to the parts they want? I have trouble reading that statement and saying "Kobe never apologized, his lawyer wrote that so we should ignore it" and then in the next breath pointing to the same statement and saying "See, Kobe admitted it, he's a rapist."
Who is saying “Kobe never apologized, his lawyer wrote that so we should ignore it”? I don’t think I have seen that. “Ignoring it” isn’t the same thing as being critical of it. I have seen something much closer to “Kobe and his team did the absolute minimum to get the charge dropped while destroying the woman in the process, so (1) maybe we shouldn’t credit his lawyerly admission as if he had truly made amends for his actions, and (2) maybe the lasting consequences of rape should remain on the table for discussion in the same breath as his ability to get to the rim.”Again, my point isn't about Kobe's guilt or innocence, my point is that there are very, very conflicting views in this thread about how to interpret that statement. Was it truly an admission of guilt? Was it truly from Kobe himself? Are folks ignoring the parts they want to ignore, and paying attention to the parts they want? I have trouble reading that statement and saying "Kobe never apologized, his lawyer wrote that so we should ignore it" and then in the next breath pointing to the same statement and saying "See, Kobe admitted it, he's a rapist."
Kind of sweet that she was trying to converse w/ you about your sports interests. Way cool.Visited with my 79 year old mom yesterday. We were sitting at the kitchen table and talking when out of the blue she says "Too bad about that Brian Jacobbe." to which I replied a simple "Yep". She's not the most up to date on all that goes on in the world. I refrained from explaining how deep and difficult a subject this as is to her it was just an opening into idle chit chat. I can only wish that Bryant's death meant this little to more people.
Yeah, for sure I appreciated the effort. She's at that stage in life where things in her orbit don't change a lot so she was looking for something current.Kind of sweet that she was trying to converse w/ you about your sports interests. Way cool.
From the ESPN Wickersham article linked earlier in this thread, from the prosecutor's point of viewYou don't need a victim to testify in a rape/sexual assault case, even if the defense is contending the encounter was consensual. You can convict based on evidence alone. Sure, it's harder for the prosecution, but it's not impossible. You need a pretty air tight case on the evidence, but based on what folks are contending around here about the evidence in this case, it's open and shut, right? I haven't read up on the case law in many years, but IIRC, you can't rely solely on an extrajudicial confession to get a conviction, however, if you have substantial corroborating evidence underlying the confession, you can use it. If Myt1 was around, he'd probably remember the Latin term that I'm blanking on right now. And unless the Federal Rules of Evidence changed since I stopped going to court, Party Admissions are allowed, as are vicarious admissions made by an agent (ie. Kobe's lawyer) on behalf of a party, so we don't have any hearsay issues here either.
Again, my point isn't about Kobe's guilt or innocence, my point is that there are very, very conflicting views in this thread about how to interpret that statement. Was it truly an admission of guilt? Was it truly from Kobe himself? Are folks ignoring the parts they want to ignore, and paying attention to the parts they want? I have trouble reading that statement and saying "Kobe never apologized, his lawyer wrote that so we should ignore it" and then in the next breath pointing to the same statement and saying "See, Kobe admitted it, he's a rapist."
But in late August 2004, just days before the trial was to begin, the woman, who declined to comment Wednesday through her attorney, informed Hurlbert that she didn't want to testify. He understood. He asked her to think about it for a few days. During that time, he called other prosecutors for their advice on what was left of a rape case if the accuser refused to testify. The consensus: The case was over. Hurlbert technically could subpoena her, but he felt that would be amoral. He called her, but her mind was made up. He respected her decision.
I don't really have a point of view here. I'm just having a conversation about the statement being attributed to Kobe (a statement that was made after the victim decided not to testify, so after the prosecutor's mind being made up that the case was dead). I've read everything there is to read about Kobe's case, and IMO, he probably did rape the girl. But, as an attorney, I have a hard time labeling someone a rapist based on an allegation and some evidence which can be interpreted very differently than the way it's been presented in the few articles that have been posted in this thread. I am pretty stubborn when it comes to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and frankly, I wish more prosecutors in this country felt the same way. If Kobe was alleged to have raped someone, was found guilty, subsequently jailed and then released years later when DNA absolved him, which happens literally every day, everyone would be lamenting our system of justice and crying tears for another innocent man wasting away in a jail cell. Here we have a case with an allegation of rape, evidence which isn't perfect by any means, and yet, folks have no problem saying they know for a fact he did it. I just can't get there, but then again, I don't really need to, because I don't like Kobe, didn't like him as a player or a person, so I'm not shedding any tears for him (although I'm truly upset about the 3 girls and the other parents that lost their lives on that chopper).. I do believe that if the prosecution viewed his statement as the confession that a lot of folks around here view it as, then coupled with the physical evidence, they may have been able to charge him even without the victim's testimony.. Once again, his "confession" came after the victim decided not to press the criminal case, but double jeopardy would not have applied, and they could have re-charged him. They may not have thought they had enough for a conviction, but I've seen prosecutors blow up folks lives in cases where a conviction was very unlikely (and a public trial, with all of the facts coming out in this case would absolutely have blown up his legacy), with less than what they had here.From the ESPN Wickersham article linked earlier in this thread, from the prosecutor's point of view
Which I will assume is a better point of view than your own personal
I think she claimed that when Kobe made sexual advances beyond making out, she told him "no" and resisted, right? If that's true, then he raped her, he was morally culpable for the physical and emotional harm done to her, and he should've been found guilty of rape in a court of law and punished accordingly. But the apology statement very clearly does not concede this point. Notice the two huge qualifiers when referencing her claims:That’s actually the legal standard. Nailed it!
Edit: do people seriously think that both parties need to think it’s rape for it to constitute rape? Here’s a PSA from a prosecutor: it doesn’t matter what you think it is, if the other party is not consenting and thinks it is rape/sexual assault, that’s exactly what it is. Get consent first. Every time.
This is Kobe's lawyers hinting that what was actually expressed and acted out (verbally and non-verbally) between the two of them that night amounted to what a reasonable person would consider consent. They're suggesting that she's misremembering or outright lying about the fact that she perceptibly resisted or revoked consent after the initial mutual interest, while saying: "but she doesn't feel that she's misremembering or lying about it." It's a bullshit non-apology that maintains legal innocence, calls her account inaccurate, then pointlessly grants that she's being sincere (sincerely wrong). In other words: it's calling her crazy, or implying she's a liar while trying to take the high road and not say it explicitly. Why? If I had to guess, I'd say:Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did...I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.
I'm not contradicting you... I'm asking for a clarification from those that know. It is my understanding that after the victim refused to testify there was a negotiation surrounding a potential civil suit. As part of that settlement, the victim asked the prosecutor to dismiss the case with prejudice. If it was dismissed with prejudice, doesn't that mean that the case could not be brought again - even if he announced to the nation he had done it? So his statement (even if we accept it as a complete and full confession) doesn't mean that the prosecution had the ability to bring the case again... right?I don't really have a point of view here. I'm just having a conversation about the statement being attributed to Kobe (a statement that was made after the victim decided not to testify, so after the prosecutor's mind being made up that the case was dead). I've read everything there is to read about Kobe's case, and IMO, he probably did rape the girl. But, as an attorney, I have a hard time labeling someone a rapist based on an allegation and some evidence which can be interpreted very differently than the way it's been presented in the few articles that have been posted in this thread. I am pretty stubborn when it comes to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and frankly, I wish more prosecutors in this country felt the same way. If Kobe was alleged to have raped someone, was found guilty, subsequently jailed and then released years later when DNA absolved him, which happens literally every day, everyone would be lamenting our system of justice and crying tears for another innocent man wasting away in a jail cell. Here we have a case with an allegation of rape, evidence which isn't perfect by any means, and yet, folks have no problem saying they know for a fact he did it. I just can't get there, but then again, I don't really need to, because I don't like Kobe, didn't like him as a player or a person, so I'm not shedding any tears for him (although I'm truly upset about the 3 girls and the other parents that lost their lives on that chopper).. I do believe that if the prosecution viewed his statement as the confession that a lot of folks around here view it as, then coupled with the physical evidence, they may have been able to charge him even without the victim's testimony.. Once again, his "confession" came after the victim decided not to press the criminal case, but double jeopardy would not have applied, and they could have re-charged him. They may not have thought they had enough for a conviction, but I've seen prosecutors blow up folks lives in cases where a conviction was very unlikely (and a public trial, with all of the facts coming out in this case would absolutely have blown up his legacy), with less than what they had here.
That said, I have no issues with the discussion about the case with respect to his legacy, and I certainly have no issue with other people, particularly sexual assault victims, having a very different view of an allegation. That's their experience and they have a right to whatever opinion they choose to have. If someone says "an allegation is all I need, IMO, the burden should be on the accused, not the victim," then that's their position and it's guided by their experiences and beliefs and I don't begrudge anyone that. Any discussion about Kobe's biography should include a long section on the alleged rape in Colorado. Period.
I just have issue with the drumbeat of "He admitted it" posts. He didn't admit it. If he did, he'd have been charged. Folks are charged for rape and murder in cases where they killed the victim all the time, so the idea you must have the victim's testimony is just not true. They bring domestic violence cases, including rape/sexual assault cases involving family members, without the victim's testimony, all the time. The physical evidence, other witnesses, hospital clinician's statements, surveillance video, etc. and even a confession from the accused are enough to bring a case. I'm just arguing that Kobe did not confess, nor did he really apologize for that matter. His lawyer wrote a statement, that was required in order to get the criminal case tossed, and reading into that as anything more is a bridge too far, IMO. And I truly believe that had the prosecution viewed his statement as an admission, like many here do, they would have brought the case.
You're right. Dismissing with prejudice means it's over. And the prosecution team wanted to try the case. They asked her to reconsider. So any claims of lack of evidence is not accurate.I'm not contradicting you... I'm asking for a clarification from those that know. It is my understanding that after the victim refused to testify there was a negotiation surrounding a potential civil suit. As part of that settlement, the victim asked the prosecutor to dismiss the case with prejudice. If it was dismissed with prejudice, doesn't that mean that the case could not be brought again - even if he announced to the nation he had done it? So his statement (even if we accept it as a complete and full confession) doesn't mean that the prosecution had the ability to bring the case again... right?
Can someone please correct me here if I'm mistaken.
Yes, that's correct. If the case was dismissed with prejudice, then double jeopardy would apply. That said, the civil suit should have had no bearing on the criminal case, and Kobe's statement was made in court, at the request of the victim, so it becomes one of timing. If the prosecution was on board with dismissing with prejudice, I would hope they reviewed the statement (which was basically the only prior condition the victim/prosecution asked for in return for dropping the charges) before actually dropping the case, otherwise, what would have stopped Kobe from turning around saying "Yeah, thanks for the dismissal, no reason to issue an apology now."I'm not contradicting you... I'm asking for a clarification from those that know. It is my understanding that after the victim refused to testify there was a negotiation surrounding a potential civil suit. As part of that settlement, the victim asked the prosecutor to dismiss the case with prejudice. If it was dismissed with prejudice, doesn't that mean that the case could not be brought again - even if he announced to the nation he had done it? So his statement (even if we accept it as a complete and full confession) doesn't mean that the prosecution had the ability to bring the case again... right?
Can someone please correct me here if I'm mistaken.
He “was”.I thought they said he was descending.
He better not be seated at the right hand of the father.He “was”.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
I didn’t see that line but there was definitely one for whether a TD celebration would somehow reverence Kobe and whether Jlo or Shakira would wear a Kobe Jersey. There was one other Kobe related prop but I can’t think of it at the moment,JLo and Shakira are doing a SB halftime thing to honor him.
Where’s @djbayko - what’s the o/u on Kobe mentions during the SB broadcast?
Was it that he’s still dead? Cuz I would’ve bet heavy on that.I didn’t see that line but there was definitely one for whether a TD celebration would somehow reverence Kobe and whether Jlo or Shakira would wear a Kobe Jersey. There was one other Kobe related prop but I can’t think of it at the moment,
So now his wife is going to burn his house down? Talk about adding insult to injury.He is Risen
Like Generalissimo Franco, Kobe is still dead.Is he still dead?
Bill Russell still walks among us, thanks be unto him.He better not be seated at the right hand of the father.
I believe he was seated at the right hand of the pilot.He better not be seated at the right hand of the father.
BOOMI've got to wonder how Kobe's ex-teammates are feeling right now considering he finally passed.
Not a response to this post in particular, but the thread overall. Some miscellaneous thoughts:It’s too bad more posters critical of Kobe aren’t responding to GoDa’s post rather than making jokes. That’s the conversation starter that most are choosing to ignore.
And this is the route you were initially trying to go down before you read the thread, then apologized for where you where going...and now you want to go down it anyway?It’s too bad more posters critical of Kobe aren’t responding to GoDa’s post rather than making jokes. That’s the conversation starter that most are choosing to ignore.
I will only speak for me. I responded to other, similar posts of his, with no effect. At some point, not giving the fire any more oxygen is the best option.It’s too bad more posters critical of Kobe aren’t responding to GoDa’s post rather than making jokes. That’s the conversation starter that most are choosing to ignore.
I laughed.So now his wife is going to burn his house down? Talk about adding insult to injury.
The problem with saying stuff like this, and the whole "Girldad" thing, is the subtext that before you had daughters you didn't really see women as people. I realize that's almost certainly not what you're trying to say here- but what does "improve your perspective" actually mean? And the idea that daughters are some kind of penance on him for his rape is gross.- For what happened in Colorado, perhaps there was some karma, in him having four girls. As a girl dad myself, I really think it improves your perspective on all sorts of things. Frankly, since I grew up without a dad in my home, I believe being a girl dad helped me immensely. I’d like to think the same happened with Kobe.
Raping a woman is not a "flaw." Pointing out that Kobe was credibly accused and charged with rape is not a political "label." It's an accurate depiction of who he was as a person. His charitable work and the person he was after are valid counterpoints- it's up to each individual to determine if that makes up for the rape. But the narrative that "we'll never know" what happened is just to make people feel better about venerating Kobe.But having reflected on this for a week or so, I think he was a very special person. Like all of us, he had his flaws, and made mistakes (which I believe he truly regrets - as I do many of mine). While we should remember the full picture, I think it a huge mistake to be dismissive of what he contributed by framing everything with a label (and we only have to look to Washington DC to see where that gets us).