Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here, I don't see anything close to that.  I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence.

Labeling others’ reactions generally here as rage based over and over is an example of your own emotional posting.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Labeling others’ reactions generally here as rage based is an example of your own emotional posting.  

Not really.  The rush to judgment has not been reasoned or evidence-based.  The presumption of innocence has been inverted.  My calls for a dispassionate examination of the evidence have been met with ugly accusations from folks like Nehor and SU.

To the extent this is all an extension of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment, I find that to be irrational and prejudiced.  Patently.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I don't understand.  Would changing "must" to "should" make the observation more palatable to you?

At a minimum a dispassionate evidence approach would require that you at least acknowledge that downplaying sexual assault by a friend is extremely common.

I acknowledge that it happens (I'm not sure what "extremely common" means)  I deny doing it or anything like it.

Embellished or false allegations of assault are also not uncommon.  Do you acknowledge that?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So if we “must” acknowledge her text thread we “must” also acknowledge her realization later.

"Realization" begs the question.  Hence the value in a dispassionate analysis.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We “must” also acknowledge how common it is for this exact thing to happen. Since you view me as an emotional wreck

I think your assessment has been based on an inversion of the presumption of innocence and a general inability or unwillingness to dispassionately analyze the evidence.  The rush to judgment seems to be emotion-based, not evidence-based.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. 

If you are capable of judging your own posts as dispassionate (which is laughable to me, no one is that capable), then why can’t you grant others the ability to judge their own posts as not rage based?

Quote

My calls for a dispassionate examination of the evidence have been met with ugly accusations from folks like Nehor and SU.

Two posters out of many.  And yet that is what you see.  What you choose to focus on.   “Mobcratic” even.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that it happens (I'm not sure what "extremely common" means

And yet your dispassionate assessment has omitted this fact in every post. As for very common you could have kept reading, but if you were indeed well read and informed on this topic as you claim you’d already know 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Dispassionately reviewing the evidence is my point.

I think it would help if more people saw you as actually doing that rather than believing you are doing that.  

I think I am doing that.  I have neither excused nor condemned the accused.  I have found their text messages to be reprehensible and depraved and licentious.  I don't know that they must be construed as an invitation to commit rape.  

I have also looked at, and accounted for, Jane Doe's 2024 statement, and her text message exchange with her roommates, and her text exchanges with some of the accused, and the statements from her dorm leader.  I am taking these at face value.  And even then, I have continued to be open to further evidence.  I don't think you and most others have done this.  Instead, there has been rage, a rush to judgment, an inversion of the presumption of innocence, and so on.

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the way you are choosing to talk about what facts we do know and where you then take it does not appear to be dispassionate to me.

I've been in the doghouse with you for a while now, so I don't really expect a fair hearing or assessment from you.  

I've tried hard to dispassionately assess the evidence.  That may yield assessments that a "all men are potential rapists" sort of person is not going to want to hear.  You look at the frat guys and say "See?  See?!."  I am attempting to look at the evidence impartially, which has resulted in "Hey, Jane Doe has previously said and done quite a bit that indicates consent was present, and that contradicts her current allegations, so perhaps we ought to pump the brakes, refrain from a rush to judgment, let the investigation play out, and let the normative presumption of innocence abide."  And that has resulted in various and repeated accusations that I am a rape apologist, with nary a peep or tut-tut from you.  Again, no expectation of a fair hearing or assessment from you.

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bluntly, it is coming across to me as a way to dismiss others’ conclusions…

At some point you might be able to allow for disagreement and characterize it as such, rather than as "dismissal."

And what "conclusions?"  The ones labeling the accused as rapists and me as their apologist/defender?  The ones that I have proposed be stayed or postponed pending more investigation and evidence?  

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

some of which are emotional, but some no more emotional than your own.  

Except I haven't reached any conclusions.  To the contrary, I have proposed that we refrain from rushing to judgment, maintain the presumption of innocence, set aside emotionalisms, let the investigation play out, let further evidence and analysis develop, and then start to reach some conclusions.

I've done this before (I recall some nasty sentiments expressed in the McKenna Denson matter), and I often catch a lot of flak for it.

I don't claim to be an emotionless automaton, but I do claim to be striving for dispassionate analysis.  i've seen nothing like that from you or SU or Nehor.  Lots of ugliness, ad hominem, etc., though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

have neither excused nor condemned the accused

That’s not the only thing that matters or the most important thing.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've been in the doghouse with you for a while now, so I don't really expect a fair hearing or assessment from you.  

Yep….another emotional response.  You don’t expect a fair hearing is being defensive.  For good reason, but not dispassionate.

And you are only in the dog house so to speak on some things, not everything btw.

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

Do we really need to know the timelines, texts, minute details, opinions of numerous people on who did what, etc before and after to comment on how this relates to the Law of Chastity and WoW or can we settle that connection with one sentence:  “Another example of why choosing not to drink, not to do recreational drugs, and not engage in premarital sex is wise.”

But does that sentence apply to Jane Doe (who, by her own 2024 account, consented to the sexual contact that night)?  Or does it only apply to the "potential rapists" portion of society?  

Is Jane Doe on this message board listening to the Law of Chastity or WoW discussion?  

No.  Are the accused frag guys?  Also no.

Again:  “Another example of why choosing not to drink, not to do recreational drugs, and not engage in premarital sex is wise.”  Does this apply to lessons drawn from Jane Doe's behavior?  Or just from the "potential rapists?"

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how are you applying a Law of Chastity or WoW discussion to the “potential rapists” portion?

I'm not.  To that portion I would apply the Brethren's counsel against prejudice.

We are living in strange times.  Categorical denigrations about "all Black men" or "all gay men" or "all Muslim men" would seemingly never cross your lips, but somehow you are okay with an even broader, and less justified, categorical denunciation that "all men are potential rapists?"  That's weird to see coming from observant Latter-day Saints, whom I think should know better.  Weird, but no longer surprising.

Pres. Nelson:

"Today, I call upon our members everywhere to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice. I plead with you to promote respect for all of God’s children.”

“The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children.”

“Charity is the antidote to contention. Charity is the spiritual gift that helps us to cast off the natural man, who is selfish, defensive, prideful, and jealous. Charity is the principal characteristic of a true follower of Jesus Christ. Charity defines a peacemaker. … As charity becomes part of our nature, we will lose the impulse to demean others. We will stop judging others. We will have charity for those from all walks of life. Charity towards all men is essential to our progress.”

Not really feeling a lot of respect coming out of your "all men are potential rapists" thing.  Copious amounts of "demean," though.

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

If something else, I am not following you at all.  

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At some point you might be able to allow for disagreement and characterize it as such, rather than as "dismissal."

Or you might look at it as me only going to,dismissal when it happened over and over again….so I came to it after years of giving you the benefit of the doubt.  And again this only applies to some topics.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again:  “Another example of why choosing not to drink, not to do recreational drugs, and not engage in premarital sex is wise.”  Does this apply to lessons drawn from Jane Doe's behavior?  Or just from the "potential rapists?"

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And this is one reason why I think you are biased in this area.  Because you insist on reading my posts over and over again as one sided, only addressing half of the behaviour when I go out of my way to state I am talking about both men and women being raped, being aggressors, etc. and use general terms.

I see you do this with others, but since I know how I write things the best, my memory is strongest here.

PS:  there are other posters I have criticized in this way and seen criticized by others in other ways in the past.  You are currently the only one that focuses on this so very much rather than just ignoring.  I figure this is because being unbiased or nonracist, etc does matter a great deal to you and it’s not an automatic refusal to see it in yourself (not calling you racist here, just mean others do and it matters to you).  This is a good thing, not a bad thing.  So I spend more time responding to your responses than the flippant ones.  You may not be intentionally asking for feedback, but it reads that way to me because of the time you spend on this and how you phrase it.

Edited 17 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

I have no affinity with the frat members accused of misconduct.  There is no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex.  I don't know any of them or have any personal connection with them.

They are men.  You are a man.

And yet I have no affinity with them.  To the contrary, I find their behavior disgusting and depraved and evil.  I'm just not sure it was rape.

I have no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You want men to be talked about a certain way…

And what "way" is that?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

or maybe it’s not talked about in certain ways.   Probably both now I think of it. 

I think prejudice is bad, and we as Latter-day Saints ought to avoid it.  I am disappointed, but no longer surprised, that you harbor this ugly sentiment.  

I would also disagree with ugly categorical prejudices against women if they were presented and/or endorsed/ratified here.  If someone were to take, say, the number of female teachers caught in recent years having sexual relations with minor students and from them extrapolate that "All women are potential pedophiles," I would reject that on the same grounds as I have rejected the ugliness presented on this board.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You do not always appear to be as cautious or caring about women if one looks at the amount of space you devote to concern about each and the emphasis you give when discussing the presumption of innocence in both cases.  

I think I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Objecting to prejudicial statements against men does not impair my ability to care about the welfare of women.  In fact, I have that welfare in mind when I challenge folks like you on it.  I think your ugly sentiment, and concepts similar to it, are doing real damage to the fabric of society.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It’s not necessary that you be as concerned with women as men given you won’t encounter many of the same sorts of things that women encounter and it’s easy to assume you might encounter the same sort of stuff as other men.  

As a husband and father and brother, I am concerned about the welfare of women.  And children, for that matter.  This despite the fact that I am neither a woman nor a child.

What a weird thing for you to say, Calm.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The problem is you presenting yourself as dispassionate when you do so, but label others as emotional or rage based when they do something similar.

There has not been "something similar."  There's been an inversion of presumption of innocence.  There has been a rush to judgment.  There has been a mob mentality.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you are capable of judging your own posts as dispassionate (which is laughable to me, no one is that capable), then why can’t you grant others the ability to judge their own posts as not rage based?

Because I haven't seen evidence of dispassionate analysis.  

Calling the accused "rapists" is not dispassionate.

Calling me a rape apologist for advocating for impartial and evidence-based evaluation of the topic is not dispassionate.

Ignoring seemingly exculpatory evidence, or reframing it with no real basis for doing so, is not dispassionate.

Calling all men "potential rapists" is not dispassionate.

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Two posters out of many.  And yet that is what you see.  What you choose to focus on.   “Mobcratic” even.  

I'm about played out with your hectoring, Calm.  You've made it clear what you think of me.  Let's return to the topic of the thread, which at present includes the Cornell matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because I haven't seen evidence of dispassionate analysis.  

Neither have I.  I am also not so confident I am going to claim it for myself.  Given how biases work, it is a type of blindness to judge ourselves as dispassionate, fair, etc.  Our biases prevent us from seeing ourselves fairly as much as they mislead us about others.  How would you know you are unbiased if you are?  Serious question.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You've made it clear what you think of me. 

If you don’t want to be targeted for not being dispassionate, then stop holding yourself up as the example of dispassionate discourse while accusing others here of rage based judgment.  Over the top labels and accusations do not demonstrate calm, dispassionate discourse.

If you can use emotionally baggaged terms without being rage based, surely others can too.  If you can call others biased without being raged based based, surely others can too.  If you can use language that racist people use without being racist, then surely others can use language that those who respond in rage use without them being raged based based based as well.

Edited 17 hours ago by Calm

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

This both begs the question and, in my view, is not based on a dispassionate view of the evidence.

I think we need to examine the evidence.

It has.  If she was assaulted, she deserves every measure of support and understanding.  Again:

• "A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law."
• "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general."
• "To be sure, the texts are repulsive.  Group sex advertised like a commodity."
• "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault.  As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk.  I did something."
• "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling."
• "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}."

If she was not assaulted, if she is making false accusations, then the risk of serious adverse consequences is fairly small.

Again:

Thanks,

-Smac

I get the feeling that you believe you are being rational and unbiased in this thread but from the outside looking in, I'm not seeing it.  You seem to be as passionate as the rest of us are on the topic.  

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  The Lindsay Clancy jury nearly acquitted her.  Had that happened, I don't think we would be "morally bound" to accept such a travesty of justice.

Similarly, I think we all know O.J. did it.  We were not "morally bound" to accept the verdict that let him go free.

Casey Anthony.  The Rodney King officers.  

Acquiescing to problematic verdicts is not my point.  Dispassionately reviewing the evidence is my point.

I think any agreement or disagreement with a verdict should be based on the evidence and a dispassionate assessment thereof.

Here, I don't see anything close to that.  I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence.

I agree.  What I don't see, though, is evidence of "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone."  I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence.

I agree.  But "support the system" does not mean we uncritically endorse every decision it makes.  Mistakes can happen.

Here, though, what I see at present on this thread is a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence.

I agree. 

We are also not under any personal obligation to reflexively and uncritically accept or reject serious accusations.  We should examine the evidence and develop - as you put it - "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone."

I don't see that happening on this thread.  Instead, what I see is . . . well, you know.

I am curious.  Are you saying we should not base our assessment on the evidence?  If so, then upon what should our assessment be based? 

We do have other options to non-evidence-based assessments, I guess: political considerations, "identity"-based affiliations and sympathies and antipathies, mobocratic rage, rushes to judgment, arbitrarily disregarding or inverting the presumption of innocence, prejudice.  None of these is good, IMO.  Assessing the evidence, dispassionately, is better.

None of us is perfect at this.  We all have our emotions and biases and subjective preferences.  For example, I really love the Church and am quite partial to it.  And yet years ago, while I was in law school, my initial assessment of the Main Street Plaza dispute was reflexively in favor of the Church.  However, as the case progressed, I came to see the merits of the legal arguments against SLC's agreement with the Church.  When the 10th Circuit's decision came out, I reviewed it and found it to be substantially correct.  Both the facts and the law were not on the side of the Church on that one.

I've said this, or something like it, a few times:

I have no affinity with the frat members accused of misconduct.  There is no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex.  I don't know any of them or have any personal connection with them.

Nor is there particularized affinity with or presumptive antipathy toward Jane Doe, either.  I don't know her or have any connection to her either.

The presumption I do hold, however, is the presumption of innocence.  It is foundational for several interlocking reasons.

As a legal principle: It requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing punishment. The accused starts free of the stigma and consequences of a conviction; the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove innocence. This protects against conviction on weak, incomplete, or contested evidence and reduces the risk of punishing the innocent—an outcome that is irreversible and far more damaging than letting a guilty person go free in a given case.

As a component of a high-trust society: It underwrites the expectation that ordinary people will be treated as free and not under permanent suspicion. When the default is innocence rather than guilt, social and economic life can proceed with less fear that an accusation alone will destroy reputation, livelihood, or liberty. That baseline trust makes cooperation, commerce, and voluntary association easier; a society that routinely treats accusation as sufficient tends toward suspicion, self-censorship, and fragmentation.

As a constraint on state power: It limits the state’s ability to punish on the basis of its own assertion or convenience. By forcing the government to meet a high evidentiary standard in an adversarial process, it checks arbitrary or politically motivated prosecutions, reduces the leverage of officials over private citizens, and preserves the idea that the individual is free unless and until the state affirmatively proves otherwise. Without it, the coercive power of the state expands dramatically and the practical difference between accusation and conviction shrinks.

I am troubled by what seems to be common and widespread licentious behaviors, both as to sexual conduct and recreational use of mind-altering substances.  The inculpatory evidence published so far is, in my view, fairly poor.  We have the group text shared by the frat members, but that can be reasonably interpreted in ways other than an invitation to join in sexual assault of an incapacitated woman.  We have Jane Doe's claims, but we also have contravening evidence - including her own statements.

Thanks,

-Smac

You've brought up how much you hate the 'all men are rapists' issue so much that there's just no way it's believable that you don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm not seeing the dispassion from you at all.  I'm seeing a lot of passion.

Edit to add:  I posted these two replies right after I read your replies to me so had no idea that you and Calm had already gone rounds on this topic, sorry as I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse.  

Edited 16 hours ago by bluebell