Kris Jenner will have to respond to sexual harassment allegations in court

[Runway 27,876]

I highly doubt Kris Jenner would do that

[Flippy 11,300]

If this was said against a male, the reactions would be so different….
Anyway, we’ll see how this develops

[js4754394o9823 6,882]

12 minutes ago, ProfessionalClown said:

You have serious issues 

I hope no one ever falsely accuses you.  

have a good day.

who is the one with "serious issues"

someone having a different opinion or the one responding to it with passive aggressive comments? lol

have a good day

[Thomas P 18,429]

25 minutes ago, ProfessionalClown said:

You have serious issues 

I hope no one ever falsely accuses you.  

have a good day.

 

24 minutes ago, Forbidden Love said:

When it comes to sex crimes, yes. I believe strongly that under the umbrella of sex crimes, it is better to assume that the accuser is telling the truth and then investigate to see whether that can be debunked rather than the other way around. The burden of proof should not have to fall on the victim. Seeing as false reports of sex crimes are rare, statistically speaking the accuser is a victim more often than not. To force a victim to provide proof of their experience only further traumatizes and victimizes them. If the person who is being accused is genuinely innocent, proving their innocence is fairly easy in the modern day world of forensics and the internet. If they are truly guilty, then the burden should fall on them and not their victim. 

If you wanna claim I have “serious issues” like you did to that person above, go ahead. I don’t care. If you think believing victims is an issue, then I’m certainly not the one here who needs to do some self assessment. 

So you can read this post again and not insult me. 

[JazmineRice 772]

Well, time will tell. I'm not sure what to think yet...I need more information. I want to believe him, but I need more information. 

 

[Alannah 2,927]

1 hour ago, FreeBritney said:

Kris Jenner could get any d!ck she wanted tbh she's a very pretty woman for her age. I don't believe this.

This was the exact reason no one on my college board believed me and my case got thrown out. "He could get any woman he wanted, why would he do that?" 

We don't know all the facts in this situation, but please realize how dangerous that sentiment is. 

[ItWasntLaauv 6,392]

As someone who’s been s*xually assaulted, idk what to believe quite yet. I honestly don’t think Kris Jenner is that dumb to jeopardize her and her family’s reputation like that.

[ProfessionalClown 10,638]

1 hour ago, Forbidden Love said:

When it comes to sex crimes, yes. I believe strongly that under the umbrella of sex crimes, it is better to assume that the accuser is telling the truth and then investigate to see whether that can be debunked rather than the other way around. The burden of proof should not have to fall on the victim. Seeing as false reports of sex crimes are rare, statistically speaking the accuser is a victim more often than not. To force a victim to provide proof of their experience only further traumatizes and victimizes them. If the person who is being accused is genuinely innocent, proving their innocence is fairly easy in the modern day world of forensics and the internet. If they are truly guilty, then the burden should fall on them and not their victim. 

If you wanna claim I have “serious issues” like you did to that person above, go ahead. I don’t care. If you think believing victims is an issue, then I’m certainly not the one here who needs to do some self assessment. 

You’re literally saying the “burden of proof” fallacy should be instated into the legal system. That would collapse our legal system (even though our legal system is already horrible) 

To prove guilt is ALWAYS the burden of the accuser, no matter who you are. You are accusing a person of a serious crime, so you should have proof for that to happen. You can’t just accuse someone of murder, robbery, attempted murder, a hit and run, etc and not have proof. It shouldn’t be any different for sexual assault. I’m sorry h the legal system would be completely useless and it would be trial by social media basically. Evidence or no evidence, you’re guilty. A woman or man should NOT be automatically guilty for something when there is NO proof. That’s just completely ridiculous. 

Look at what happened with Johnny Depp. Everyone believed Amber until the proof came out against her. There have been a lot of recent false allegations as well. She literally admitted it and people STILL believe she never touched him. 

[ProfessionalClown 10,638]

53 minutes ago, kukuryku666 said:

who is the one with "serious issues"

someone having a different opinion or the one responding to it with passive aggressive comments? lol

have a good day

The burden of proof lies in the accusers hands for every single crime a person is accused of. No proof? In the eyes of the legal system it didn’t happen. Sorry.

Ever heard of the “burden of proof” fallacy?  The accuser must provide proof of guilty instead of innocence. It’ll lead to a slippery slope of other things. If in the legal system it’s guilty until innocent, the system would be taken advantage of SO MUCH. I could literally say you doxxed me and posted my information online and if you had no proof of anything, you’d be in big trouble.

it’s not safe for anyone. At all.

[js4754394o9823 6,882]

22 minutes ago, ProfessionalClown said:

The burden of proof lies in the accusers hands for every single crime a person is accused of. No proof? In the eyes of the legal system it didn’t happen. Sorry.

Ever heard of the “burden of proof” fallacy?  The accuser must provide proof of guilty instead of innocence. It’ll lead to a slippery slope of other things. If in the legal system it’s guilty until innocent, the system would be taken advantage of SO MUCH. I could literally say you doxxed me and posted my information online and if you had no proof of anything, you’d be in big trouble.

it’s not safe for anyone. At all.

Why are you saying it to me? Lol

[ProfessionalClown 10,638]

4 minutes ago, kukuryku666 said:

Why are you saying it to me? Lol

Because you replied to me saying “you have serious issues”. I’m assuming you agree with the people I said that to.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Economy 45,765]

2 hours ago, Forbidden Love said:

Always believe the accuser unless irrefutable evidence proves the person they’re accusing’s innocence. Period. 

We literally just had a situation in my job that proves why u cant just assume. She didnt realize we had camera footage so she got suspended

 

If u dont know u shouldnt take sides. Thats the way it should be

 

This rising culture of always believe victim no matter what is gonna make it way to easy for just anyone to tarnish to take revenge on someone they have something against

 

You can still take the victim seriously by not brushing them off, listening to them and be willing to investigate etc not like the old ways of just shutting them up

 

But just assuming can alsp be a dangerous extreme

[uo111 5,212]

Some of the “hot takes” in this thread… the rape culture

[js4754394o9823 6,882]

24 minutes ago, ProfessionalClown said:

Because you replied to me saying “you have serious issues”. I’m assuming you agree with the people I said that to.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

I only pointed out how you're passive aggressive to someone just because they have a different opinion than yours, nothing more

Why didn't you say that burden of proof stuff to them, instead of being mean

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Forbidden Love said:

When it comes to sex crimes, yes. I believe strongly that under the umbrella of sex crimes, it is better to assume that the accuser is telling the truth and then investigate to see whether that can be debunked rather than the other way around. The burden of proof should not have to fall on the victim. Seeing as false reports of sex crimes are rare, statistically speaking the accuser is a victim more often than not. To force a victim to provide proof of their experience only further traumatizes and victimizes them. If the person who is being accused is genuinely innocent, proving their innocence is fairly easy in the modern day world of forensics and the internet. If they are truly guilty, then the burden should fall on them and not their victim. 

If you wanna claim I have “serious issues” like you did to that person above, go ahead. I don’t care. If you think believing victims is an issue, then I’m certainly not the one here who needs to do some self assessment. 

Uhm no? If someone makes an accusation it should be taken SERIOUSLY, not believed until proven wrong. That’s not how the system works nor should it be how the public works. You can take a case seriously & wait for evidence without it equating you not believing the victim. It isn’t one or the other & if you believe it is then yes you do need help. Nothing is that black & white, it’s not you believe the victim or you don’t. Get a grip on reality & wait for the evidence.