The title alone is a trigger so putting the silly and useless trigger warning after the title makes no sense.
You have either already triggered someone or the the title serves as a warning to whomever would be triggered.
His response is that they are lying. How original. He ripped that from the pages of a book by an offender, no?
In other news, Montana leads the list of safest U.S. states for women; amazingly, no rapes have occurred there in decades.
Montana may be a beautiful state but the people that live there are by far the most backwards thinking individuals I've ever come across.. and I grew up in the state that produced Sarah Palin.
They didn't get around to implementing any DUI laws until 2005, and it took threats from the federal government to take away highway funds for it to happen. If that doesn't paint a picture of the type of people that live there, I'm not sure what else will work.
The prosecutor's official response to the DOJ report "NUH-UH!"
As the only time I've gone through Montana is when visiting Glacier National Park, this story made me curious about who prosecutes crimes on national park property. Cursory research indicates federal courts handle those prosecutions. (Of course, the national park service is severely understaffed and underfunded, particularly given the acreage they're covering.)
I'm having serious trouble trying to imagine.
Great headline! But if Montana is out, then what state does the DoJ recommend getting raped in?
What I've learned, in my few years on this planet is never, ever go to the cops, for anything. Not sure what someone who's been assaulted should do (I guess seek counseling from someone qualified who'll take you seriously) but going to the cops seems unlikely to ever help a victim heal their wounds.
Maybe they are the type of people who don't want to punish you if you haven't hurt anyone.
DUI laws are pre-emptive punishment for potentially harmful behavior. If you actually do hurt someone, there will be additional charges, not just DUI.
If it came down to guns .vs. butter, I think I'd rather save punishment for people who cause harm, instead of exhausting my resources looking for people who've made bad decisions that have a high chance of causing harm. But apparently we have limitless resources to devote to punishments; after all, we can always rip more money out of public assistance and education budgets, right? So I guess everything's OK.
NOTE: The above is an exercise in open-mindedness, rather than an attempt to defend Montana or her citizens, or any sort of plea for repeal of DUI laws. Please do not send the police to my house to brutally punish me for my thoughtcrimes!
Is there a point at which the prosecutor(s) become accessories after the fact? Disbarred because of a failure to do their job? Something?
Probably, but there would have to be someone in the state who is in a position to start the investigation and have the clout to make something happen.
I doubt there's anyone in Montana who fits those requirements.
Well there used to be the Mafia. I suppose if you live on the west coast you could go to the Triads or the Yakuza. You need money, of course, but it's at least something I guess?
I disagree. Saying "rape" doesn't trigger someone. Describing the details of rape can. To be honest, I wouldn't think this post would actually need a trigger warning since it doesn't describe the actions of rape. It simply describes injustices. Still, a trigger warning is a very useful warning to people who have been victims of sexual assault, abuse, or anything else that could trigger PTSD symptoms. I think Cory is being wise with acknowledging the use of trigger warnings, but being just a little too broad on their scope. Still, it is better to be broad than to fuck someone up.
I did a quick search and I found it in the legislative history since at least 1955.
I'm not "liking" your post because that feels gross and weird, and it makes me sad. So I'll just reply to say that your statistic combined with this story makes me repeat in my head, "WTF, over?"
Also, in mildly related news, I just enjoyed the ending episode of season 5 of Dexter where he knocks the ever-loving hell out of the child abuser and makes clear that the scumbag should immediately leave town...or else. It was wonderful and righteous.
I know this won't make a difference in anyone's opinion but here goes:
Despite the title of this article the DoJ's letter does not address the handling of sexual assault cases in the State of Montana, by the State of Montana or by the State Police of Montana. It deals with the handling of sexual assault cases by the Missoula Police Department, the University of Montana and the Missoula County Attorney's Office. There is a difference despite Cory Doctrow's dislike of red-staters this is not about the state as a whole; it's really about one elected official's failure to do his job (which leads to others not doing or being stymied in doing theirs but it starts with him). Which people would know if they actually read the letter from the DoJ.
I guess it's just easier and more fun to go after everyone in the state as condoning rape. (And before anyone starts rolling out the "Conservatives war on women" talking points - Missoula is a liberal town, home to a very liberal University and the County Attorney is a liberal Democrat.)
At least you get what you pay for.
I have a crippling phobia of being raped by a thespian equine. Please give a bit of forewarning before saying something so insensitive.
Right. We need more comprehensive data before we paint an entire U.S. State with a broad brush of shame.
next page →