Is it hard to walk with knees that jerk like that?
The original article is much longer and generally shows the care and dedication those in that unit show. Futhermore, there is evidence that many women do lie about being raped. There is also evidence that many men accused (and convicted) of rape are not guilty. I can easily imagine that the cop's explanation of how they try to assess the validity of a report was oversimplified into one line being pulled out of a longer explanation. I've got a healthy distrust of cops and the legal system, but they do have some idea of what they're doing and, it seems, their assesments are pretty good.</a.
Link #1: pay-to-publish scam site whose current front page involves a similar paper on telepathic dogs!
Link #2: a link to a set of people exonerated post-conviction by DNA evidence. Unrelated topic is unrelated!
Link #3: "Given 15 true rape allegations and 15 false rape allegations, experienced police officers using set criteria were better at determining which were true than a smaller group of cops of unspecified experience who were not given criteria to judge by. The criteria were created by people who knew which accounts were true and which were not. This study is not statistically significant."
Good job! What's your next trick? Are you going to link The Discovery Institute when talking science, or Stormfront when discussing civil rights?
1. Springer is a leading publisher of scientific and medical publications. You wouldn't know that because you didn't do any research because you're not interested in anything that does not support your preconceived notions. You didn't even bother to click on the link about the dogs, which leads to a study about human/canine interaction that has nothing to do with ESP and was conducted at the University of Florida.
2. That many men who were accused and convicted of rape have been conclusively exonerated proves that some men accused of rape are not guilty. Therefore, not all testimony against men accused of rape is valid. Relevant to anyone who is interested in the facts.
3. Study showed that there is a significant, though not large difference in the ability to judge the veractity of accounts if certain criteria are used to judge them. It also showed that experienced cops were almost as good at distinguishing false from true going on their own. And doesn't the fact that they had false allegations to use in the study prove the cop's point that some women lie about rape?
You're a closed-minded fool who jumps to conclusions without looking at the evidence, let alone considering it. You belittle and shower scorn upon anyone who doesn't agree with you, and can never admit when you're wrong. It doesn't make you right. It just makes you an asshole.
1. They ask for money, then publish what you pay them to publish. Which makes them pay-to-publish. Which makes them inherently unreliable - there is no reason to examine their content further.
2. Except that nobody was talking about wrongful convictions, or about the ability of DNA evidence to absolve people wrongfully convicted. Unrelated link is *still* unrelated.
3. Unrelated statistically insignificant study is still, even now, unrelated.
You've still missed the point, entirely, with your unrelated study, which is that *the head of the rape investigation unit* declared that *any woman who asks to talk to a female cop* is *presumed to be lying*.
Which has produced a shitload of anger because a very great many women who have been raped are uncomfortable discussing it with male officers, for similar reasons to why nobody does a "rape kit" collection using only male staff if at all possible. This cop who is supposed to know better and who has the ability to greatly influence a large number of rape cases for a lot of women? Has a "criteria" that applies to a whole lot of women who really were raped.
I realise you dive headfirst into MRA nonsense on a regular basis, but please. Your misogynist attempt to redirect this into "sometimes rape allegations are false" is idiotic - the issue at hand is that the head of a rape investigation division uses a damn near universal response to really being raped as a litmus test, and if you have this reaction, he decides then and there that you're lying and HAVEN'T been raped. Nobody EXCEPT YOU has said anything about "no false accusations ever happen". What I and everyone else complaining about this idiot have said is that *he dismisses a lot of people who truly have been raped as liars, because they asked to talk to a female cop*.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-09 10:48 pm (UTC)The original article is much longer and generally shows the care and dedication those in that unit show. Futhermore, there is evidence that many women do lie about being raped. There is also evidence that many men accused (and convicted) of rape are not guilty. I can easily imagine that the cop's explanation of how they try to assess the validity of a report was oversimplified into one line being pulled out of a longer explanation. I've got a healthy distrust of cops and the legal system, but they do have some idea of what they're doing and, it seems, their assesments are pretty good.</a.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-09 11:08 pm (UTC)Link #1: pay-to-publish scam site whose current front page involves a similar paper on telepathic dogs!
Link #2: a link to a set of people exonerated post-conviction by DNA evidence. Unrelated topic is unrelated!
Link #3: "Given 15 true rape allegations and 15 false rape allegations, experienced police officers using set criteria were better at determining which were true than a smaller group of cops of unspecified experience who were not given criteria to judge by. The criteria were created by people who knew which accounts were true and which were not. This study is not statistically significant."
Good job! What's your next trick? Are you going to link The Discovery Institute when talking science, or Stormfront when discussing civil rights?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-10 05:14 am (UTC)1. Springer is a leading publisher of scientific and medical publications. You wouldn't know that because you didn't do any research because you're not interested in anything that does not support your preconceived notions. You didn't even bother to click on the link about the dogs, which leads to a study about human/canine interaction that has nothing to do with ESP and was conducted at the University of Florida.
2. That many men who were accused and convicted of rape have been conclusively exonerated proves that some men accused of rape are not guilty. Therefore, not all testimony against men accused of rape is valid. Relevant to anyone who is interested in the facts.
3. Study showed that there is a significant, though not large difference in the ability to judge the veractity of accounts if certain criteria are used to judge them. It also showed that experienced cops were almost as good at distinguishing false from true going on their own. And doesn't the fact that they had false allegations to use in the study prove the cop's point that some women lie about rape?
You're a closed-minded fool who jumps to conclusions without looking at the evidence, let alone considering it. You belittle and shower scorn upon anyone who doesn't agree with you, and can never admit when you're wrong. It doesn't make you right. It just makes you an asshole.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-10 11:49 am (UTC)2. Except that nobody was talking about wrongful convictions, or about the ability of DNA evidence to absolve people wrongfully convicted. Unrelated link is *still* unrelated.
3. Unrelated statistically insignificant study is still, even now, unrelated.
You've still missed the point, entirely, with your unrelated study, which is that *the head of the rape investigation unit* declared that *any woman who asks to talk to a female cop* is *presumed to be lying*.
Which has produced a shitload of anger because a very great many women who have been raped are uncomfortable discussing it with male officers, for similar reasons to why nobody does a "rape kit" collection using only male staff if at all possible. This cop who is supposed to know better and who has the ability to greatly influence a large number of rape cases for a lot of women? Has a "criteria" that applies to a whole lot of women who really were raped.
I realise you dive headfirst into MRA nonsense on a regular basis, but please. Your misogynist attempt to redirect this into "sometimes rape allegations are false" is idiotic - the issue at hand is that the head of a rape investigation division uses a damn near universal response to really being raped as a litmus test, and if you have this reaction, he decides then and there that you're lying and HAVEN'T been raped. Nobody EXCEPT YOU has said anything about "no false accusations ever happen". What I and everyone else complaining about this idiot have said is that *he dismisses a lot of people who truly have been raped as liars, because they asked to talk to a female cop*.