Three Suspects rape elderly lady - Page 3  

There is no evidence because if it was done to someone that the public did not care about it was not even reported or prosecuted.

I will tell a story of my cousins great grandmother and why this crime was not reported.

The great grandmother and her five very small children were out and about one day and three white men beat her, raped her and left her dead body laying on the railroad tracks. Her children had to watch this and could do nothing. They took her body home, cleaned her and put her to rest themselves. They did not bother to call the police as they might have been killed themselves.

Nothing was ever done because the woman was just a redskin and the crime was never even reported. This does not even begin to touch on what was done to Native Americans. Read about Sand Creek.

The world has been an ugly place for a long time and if there were as many people then as there are now it would have been the same.

Thanks for sharing sultry! That is such a tragic story and sadly, I do not think your family (or begret's) is alone in having such a tale.

I don't know if it makes me feel better or worse to know that things like this have always happened. Worse...because why are people so damn messed up...but better too, because it means that what happens today really isn't some new breed of horror. There are always a number of people in this world whose brains are diseased.

You were the one who assumed that I meant nonexistent by the term "unheard of" which was a pretty poor assumption on your behalf considering no one confuses the two terms. I'm well aware of your comment about crimes not being covered in the press... it's why I mentioned the reporting which contains data disproving your initial theory (the press may have chosen to ignore some crimes but there were still police records of them). The UCR refers to both crime rate in general in addition to the rates of specific crimes, rapes as well as crimes in general are, according to statistics, more common today than they were in the 1930's (also... the first person to mention a crime other than rape was yourself).


You have said that I have no firm evidence which is laughable since your entire argument is built upon the heart wrenching tales of two grandmothers who didn't report their rape. Can you please provide me some sort of statistic showing that more victims didn't inform the authorities of a rape back in the 1930's than today? Oh wait, that's right, you can't.

As I've already stated, there was no record as to the number of crimes committed in 1930 resembling this one to a t. I, personally, was talking about rape in general... but if you're talking about three black men raping an elderly woman than I'd venture to guess that a crime of that nature was incredibly rare in the 1930's. Granted, there's no data to prove that theory, but there's still only one of us who has provided statistical evidence in this topic thus far.

Those who aren't members of your little HF squad would more than likely base their conclusions off of the evidence at hand. You can not prove that there were more people in the 1930's who didn't report their rapes than today and, as such, can not disprove my argument that there were less rapes in the 1930's.

If you want to think you're right ,be right. I don't give a rat's ass. It doesn't change any part of my existence.

zeitgeist, what happened to our debate we were having via PM? you still haven't replied back to my last one. until then, i'm going to assume you concede to me; so now that you know you have no good reason to continue with your agenda, it must be for selfish and/or emotionally charged reasons.

-1 for you, not because i disagree and think your views are DANGEROUS to society, but because you KNOW you you're just posting to provoke.

Okay...first off, where the f**k are these statistics you have provided? You haven't provided s**t. You have talked a big talk, but provided NOT ONE number in support of your claim that the amount of elderly rape victims has gone up. Oh, and any good researcher will tell you that post facto emperical evidence (as shown here by two people on a forum immeadiatly having a tale of unreported rape) must be taken into account with statistics.

Those numbers, which may not even exist since you have not provided them, are of very low value because the margin of error on their accuracy would be very high.

I really cannot keep repeating myself over and over just because you are an idiot. I asked you before why you bothered to say "such things were unheard of 75 years ago" since unheard of does not equal nonexistant. You ignored that and went on an absurd tirade about statistics in your head from the 1930s.

You have in no way proven that there were less rapes in the 1930s. You have not even proven that there were less REPORTED rapes in the 1930s. Why don't you start off with that? Then I will disprove it.

P.S. Referring in a derogatory way to people who have posted in support of what I have said does nothing to prove your case. I have not brought up the fact that no one seems to agree with you, so I don't know why you bother to point it out.

Oh begret...I aspire to your yogi like patience and calm.

Well, it might be I'm just tired You're the wordsmith here Thanks for that.

Well Sevenkid...I am sure you are tipity-typing away your BS response, but I will go ahead and post because I now have evidence that you have absolutely no way of proving that rape of the elderly has increased in the last 75 years

This is from a clearly researched and properly annotated article on the rape of elderly women found here.

You have no proof. Your argument is baseless.

The FBI has compiled a UCR since 1930, if you do not believe me please go ahead and pull it up on your monitor. So far, if you want to consider the trials and tribulations that relatives of two forum members have underwent, you have one rape that occurred in America and another which I believe happened in Russia or something (plus the 1930 UCR statistics you refuse to acknowledge) versus the 2005 UCR data. The only way in which you could possibly be correct is if you somehow came up with enough "silent" rape victims that the number of rapes in 1930, if converted due to difference in population, would be higher than 93,934. This, of course, is assuming that everyone raped in 2005 came forward with their rape. It's pretty likely considering all of the immigrants who can't speak a lick of English... yeah, they're definitely going to be able to help compile a police report when raped.

My comment about crimes like the one which the OP created this thread about being "unheard" of was a way to contribute to the positive discussion of the topic at hand. It was a way of saying that this society has gone downhill in the last 75 or so years. You too could have tried to stay on topic but, instead, you chose to decree this topic a racist supplement to Zeitgeist's "racist tirade". None of this matters of course since you do a great job of pandering to your internet friends who will no doubt back you up on any discussion no matter how incredibly incorrect you may be.

Note: Your little blurb does nothing to further your point at all. The UCR Program counts one offense for each female victim of a forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, or assault with intent to rape, regardless of the victim's age. We've gone over that, they never recorded exactly how many women raped fell into the 60+ catagory. You, however, have yet to prove that the number of people who didn't report their rapes in 1930 causes the number of rapes in 1930 to be of equal or greater number per capita than the amount of rapes today. This is, of course, because it is impossible.

Please see the above post about how you cannot prove your argument.

If you had been getting PM after PM from ZeitBigot with crime stats on minorities before this thread was ever put up, you might have come to the conclusion that it was further evidence that he is a racist prick. Of course, maybe not, given that your own prejudices have come out more than once on this forum.

Again, why do you bring up the people who agree with me when I have not. It is really pathetic to keep screaming about it. Uhm...grow up. I am happy that there are people who think I am saying the right things, but that is certainly not why I am saying them.

I like Casey. So what?
In my op I said at the end of it that it was an anecdotal account, commenting only on the social climate at the time. My grandmother was a young woman at the time anyway, and these incidents happened in a different country. If you ever read any of my other posts, I am not really confrontational. Just stating an opinion, for f*&^s sake.

That's weird.

Is that not a mention of those who agree with you?

I don't know what Zeitgeist messaged you but, frankly, it did not require a post from you in this topic. If you feel that he's simply a racist troll that's fine, no one is forcing you to click on his threads.

zeitgeist, i think you should tell or "clarify" your views on race here. it's rather interesting to say the least (i have an idea which neo group you're affiliated with).

I brought up what they said, not the fact that they agree with me. You bring up the people who agree with me as some kind of proof that I am pandering to a crowd. Again, grow up.

I will post on any thread I want, and I WILL call out racism where I see it. People were asking why he would post this story here, and I had a very logical explaination which he has repeatedly proven with his continued racist postings.

I am not surprised that his racism does not bother you.

Do you have anything to say about the fact that you have put forth a bulls**t argument for the past few hours that was conclusively proven to be completely baseless by my source? Or do you just want to post more current crime stats that prove nothing about what you are trying to say?

Silly begret...don't you know that both you and your grandmother are obviously part of my
"fanbase" which, according to sevenkid, means that you have no opinions of your own and support me in all things blindly

They agree with you in part due to what they had to say.

Congratulations, you bruisers certainly are tough cookies. Your explanation, while logical, was not relevant to the topic at hand in the least. There's no reason for you to "threadcrap" his topics just because you feel the need to point out a possible racist agenda, if you didn't want to further the discussion of the topic at hand you shouldn't have posted in the first place.

I do think that Zeitgeist has a slightly racist edge (more so towards Jewish people). You're right though, it doesn't bother me. I didn't see you take a stand against the girl who stated in his last topic that she understood why her relatives hated white people so much. People have prejudice, I'm fine with it, but if you're going to lament one person for their racial bias I expect you to wage an all out assault against someone with opposite but equally "racist" sentiments.

I'm not sure how to get it through your voluptuous (yes, that's a joke, please don't misinterpret my comments and post another topic looking for sympathy!) skull... you haven't proven anything or managed to disprove the UCR. It's your burden to prove that there were more rapes per capita in the 1930's than there are today... you haven't done that and instead have incorrectly gone on and on about how people back then never reported rape.

Not looking for sympathy before...just pointing out what a charming personality you have.

I did disprove that UCR data can be used as evidence in this case. You got nothing. No data, no facts. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU SINCE YOU MADE THE RIDICULOUS CLAIM. If you had ever actually learned to debate properly, you would know that it falls to you to prove your positive statement, not to me to disprove it. I have proven that you cannot prove your case using UCR data and you don't have anything else.

Just in case you are incapable of reading the source I quoted for some reason, let me reiterate. The UCR records information about offenders not victims. I have only ever been dealing with the number of ELDERLY RAPE cases which you have expanded to mean all rape cases. Since the UCR does not provide any demographic information about the victims of crimes there is no way to know if the rape of the elderly has increased per capita.

Oh, and where is your number of total per capita rapes from the 1930's? I can't find it on the site...perhaps they do not list it because they are aware of their inferior reporting from that time and know that the data is not valid or reliable.

Pack it up and go home. You lost. It is over.

No, SevenKid. You are wrong. The burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE. You are saying there are more rapes per capita now than in the 1930s. You have provided sources stating that there are more REPORTED rapes per capita now than in the 1930s. This is correlational to but not exactly the same as (nor evidence for) the number of rapes per capita now or in the 1930s.

Casey denies your claim. She has no burden of proof.

ZeitBigot...I can see you have quite the fixation with my avatar. Don't think that I am excited by you. Naseated perhaps, but not excited.

I am merely pointing out your racism...which is becoming more evident with every post you make. I think that everyone should know when they are dealing with a racist. Your innitial post was not, in and of itself racist, however, given your repeated and unsolicited PMs, I felt quite certain that I had some valuable information to share when someone asked the question of why you would post this on the forum. Your response to my post just proves my point. So thanks for being such a dependable racist.

Casey is right in that there isn't enough data to entirely substantiate my claim so, if you'd like to look at it from that angle, there's no way for me to support my claim with one hundred percent accuracy. However, there is also no data which states that there were more rapes per capita in 1930 than there are today.

P.S. You're entitled to post whatever you want in theory but Private Messages are intended to be, you know, private. You can't possibly say that you weren't threadcrapping in his topic.