Kobe Bryant catching flak for his appereance in the Call of Duty: Black Ops Ad

[vodkazvictim]

Can't we move this to celebrity news?

 

[Facetious]

I love my country but sorry we are a nation of whiners and complainers. You can't say or do anything anymore without offending someone or some advocate group or whatever.

This . . true . . sad . . by design

 

[shayd]

Well, he did rape that woman. :dunno:

 

[LukeEl]

I bet he sucks at the game.

 

[CptHa]

Loved it. People are getting pissed that Bryant is in there when they have a little kid smiling after blasting a few shotgun rounds, talk about priorities.

 

[Bree Olson]

It's probably just because he was using the noob tube that made people get all mad.

 

[Hot Mega]

It's probably just because he was using the noob tube that made people get all mad.

I even think I saw you in that commercial representing the porn stars...weren't you the blonde who popped the 2, big guns out in the middle?

 

[Bearded_Menace]

Bree Olson[/URL][/B], post: 5097219, member: 370964"]It's probably just because he was using the noob tube that made people get all mad.

To add insult to injury, he actually had the word "MAMBA" plastered all over it:1orglaugh

 

[PlumpRump]

Well, he did rape that woman. :dunno:

Yeah, but he's won 2 NBA titles since then. Championships seem to make people forget about small, inconsequential details.

Seriously, though... The thing I find the funniest about this commercial is the appearance by Jimmy Kimmel. He is always bashing conservatives (The Palins, and Palin supporters most recently), and is pretty obviously a pot-smoking liberal, yet he appears in this commercial that glorifies war, and is getting paid for it, no less. Seems pretty antithetical to the liberal viewpoint, no?

Thing is, I could care less about Kimmel or Kobe being in this ad. I thought both Kobe and Kimmel being in the commercial was awesome. Its just a commercial for a freakin' video game. People need to get their panties out of a bunch.

Also:

Todd Walker — a youth football coach and funeral-establishment worker whom he'd previously profiled, a man who "fights the gun culture and the death culture ... [and] the pervasiveness that threatens to turn youth gun violence into just another annoyance of modern life." Walker tries to impress upon his young charges that violence has consequences, that death is real and final, through hands-on horrors like detailed tours of the funeral parlor and getting inside of cardboard cremation boxes.

This man should, quite obviously, be fired from his job at the funeral home. Fighting the "death culture," as a funeral home employee? For shame. What are you trying to do? Put your employers out of business? What an ass!

 

[hobson]

idk why everyone i smaking a big deal about it, its not the first war game it sure won't be the last one just let him do what he wants to do

I bet he sucks at the game.

NO. kobe doesn't suck at anything =)

 

[roronoa3000]

Well, he did rape that woman. :dunno:

...acquitted

 

[shayd]

...acquitted

More like settled out of court.
The circumstances were so outrageous in that trial, that the outcome is little more than a sham.

 

[sporty_carr]

Jimmy Kimmel = Proud Noob :1orglaugh

 

[sualcalay]

Come on people, that's the media's job. Create controversy so that people may view/buy their products and services. Kobe is only catching "flak" as you say so that the news reporters can actually do their job and earn money making people watch their channels to hear more about the story. Simple propaganda. Most likely none of the people that spoke ill of the commercial actually meant it, except perhaps that Todd Walker coach, who is a rather sensitive and not so bright man.

It's just business

 

[Hot Mega]

More like settled out of court.
The circumstances were so outrageous in that trial, that the outcome is little more than a sham.

The charges were dropped. You don't "settle" criminal charges. The charges are either dropped (dismissed), you admit guilt or you plea to lesser charges before trial. He apologized, she refused to testify for that they both spared themselves more public humiliation.

They settled a separate civil suit out of court.

What was a sham was the fact that it ever made it to a trial. Multiple cum stains in her chonies, incriminating text messages, suspicious timing on the accusation in relationship to her being suspected of improper behavior at the time, etc.

If by sham you mean him paying her for that, I agree.

 

[como7170]

It is a great commercial. Almost makes me want to play the game...almost.

 

[shayd]

The charges were dropped. You don't "settle" criminal charges. The charges are either dropped (dismissed), you admit guilt or you plea to lesser charges before trial. He apologized, she refused to testify for that they both spared themselves more public humiliation.

They settled a separate civil suit out of court.

What was a sham was the fact that it ever made it to a trial. Multiple cum stains in her chonies, incriminating text messages, suspicious timing on the accusation in relationship to her being suspected of improper behavior at the time, etc.

If by sham you mean him paying her for that, I agree.

I'm well aware of how the system works. My point was the eventual outcome was that of a settlement.

Beyond that, all of the defense was circumstantial. My main point of contention was that the judge allowed a breach of the law.

Per the article:

In the history of the Rape Shield Laws in Colorado, there had been [until the Bryant trial] no prior exceptions granted by state courts with respect to the identity of the complainant. Explains Thompson: "One of the most controversial rulings by Judge Terry Ruckriegle was his decision to breach the Shield Laws by identifying [Faber]. Additionally, the Rape Shield Laws dictated that complainants could not legally have their sexual histories revealed, save for a case in which a medical issue was present, specifically the risk of transmission of a sexually transmitted disease, thus entitling punitive damages. Judge Ruckriegle ruled however that adhering to said laws would pose an inherent risk to the impartial nature of the court, thus he granted a motion which breached Colorado law...This was especially notable due to the fact that Judge Ruckriegle did not make an interpretation of the state law, rather he chose to override it in what he deemed the interest of fairness."...What this serves to illustrate is that Rape Shield laws become most efficacious when there is no ruling made with respect to public standing. What Judge Ruckriegle ruled however, was a direct violation of this principle, thus undermining the entire system.

The Judge point blank stated he wanted to disclose the accuser's identity, (and in doing so, blatantly break Colorado law) in order to preserve impartiality, however in doing so, he violated said impartially by lending more credence to the importance of protecting Bryant's image as a public figure than that of an anonymous woman. It was an absolute joke, and the Judge should've been removed from the bench on the spot.

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm well aware of how the system works. My point was the eventual outcome was that of a settlement.

Beyond that, all of the defense was circumstantial. My main point of contention was that the judge allowed a breach of the law.

Per the article:

The Judge point blank stated he wanted to disclose the accuser's identity, (and in doing so, blatantly break Colorado law) in order to preserve impartiality, however in doing so, he violated said impartially by lending more credence to the importance of protecting Bryant's image as a public figure than that of an anonymous woman. It was an absolute joke, and the Judge should've been removed from the bench on the spot.

You're asserting an opinion as a fact. Before you continue doing so you should make yourself aware of the facts. The author of what you cite appears to conflate two, different things; precedence and grounds. Though it was unprecedented doesn't mean there were no legal grounds for the exception.

Under the Colorado statute there ARE grounds for exceptions in their rape shield law which demonstrate the judge being within his authority to do so on the basis of similar evidence of sex intercourse (among a few others).

http://www.arte-sana.com/articles/rape_shield_laws_us.pdf

EVEN AS SUCH the disclosure of her identity if that's the point of contention didn't bear upon a single, material fact. The case against him was STILL flimsy at best.

 

[Supafly]

I love my country but sorry we are a nation of whiners and complainers. You can't say or do anything anymore without offending someone or some advocate group or whatever.

Same here in Germany. Same shit all over, I guess :dunno:

I liked that commercial! But I missed the Bieber in it

 

[shayd]

You're asserting an opinion as a fact. Before you continue doing so you should make yourself aware of the facts. The author of what you cite appears to conflate two, different things; precedence and grounds. Though it was unprecedented doesn't mean there were no legal grounds for the exception.

Per the previous article:

The issue at hand became the grounds for which [Judge Ruckriegle] reasoned his ruling: "The court finds reason to believe that the impartial nature of [the trial] would be compromised if the accuser remains anonymous. There exists a fundamental impartiality toward a person of such public figure as the defendant, in the case that the accuser remain anonymous." [Colorado Rape Shield law] however declares: "Anonymity shall be preserved, if desired by a complainant, save for a case in which documented medical evidence exists providing necessary cause to identify past medical issues. Further statute states: "No ruling shall be granted with respect to the opinion of the public of a particular party, and said influence may not be leveraged to deny anonymity.

You're right, being unprecedented made no difference whatsoever. However, the judge violated both precedence, AND legal grounds. He gave no medical justification of his interpretation, which by law, he had to. Which begets this little gem:

Under the Colorado statute there ARE grounds for exceptions in their rape shield law which demonstrate the judge being within his authority to do so on the basis of similar evidence of sex intercourse (among a few others).

http://www.arte-sana.com/articles/rape_shield_laws_us.pdf

Perhaps that is because said bylaws were enacted ex post facto:

In 2005, the Colorado Rape Shield Laws were amended to include provisions which allowed judicial authority to reveal nearly any information with respect to either accuser or defendant, deemed germane by a presiding Judge, based on an expanded criteria.

Clearly, that had no bearing on the case, as it wasn't enacted until almost two full years later.

EVEN AS SUCH the disclosure of her identity if that's the point of contention didn't bear upon a single, material fact. The case against him was STILL flimsy at best.

I never said it was a prima facie case. I simply said the trial was a joke, by virtue of the fact that both the legal and de facto laws were both flippantly violated. The judge claimed to be protecting Bryant's right to an impartial trial by inherently violating the state law that guarantees the accuser the exact same right by way of anonymity. It also doesn't bode well for Bryant that he settled, which typically hasn't been the mark of an innocent party. Hell, her vagina was bleeding, and the defense was that it was "consistent with having multiple partners". The defense didn't even bother dismissing it as a clear-cut sign of the actus reus, , but I digress.