620
621
622

Men's RightsAWALT....Woman tries to claim rape to avoid getting fired....gets charged for false claim when her Fitbit data is analyzed (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by yeoxnuuq

Woman found out she was going to get fired and decides to stage a rape scene. The cops (great work) find and down load her Fitbit data.....annnnnd

"[A] Fitbit device Risley was wearing told a different story, the affidavit shows. The device, which monitors a person’s activity and sleep, showed Risley was awake and walking around at the time she claimed she was sleeping."

Along with other evidence or lack there of that did not add up she was charged with “false reports to law enforcement, false alarms to public safety, and tampering with evidence”

Slowly but surly times are a changing and that feminist line that no woman would possibly lie is being unraveled.

http://fusion.net/story/158292/fitbit-data-just-undermined-a-womans-rape-claim/


[–][deleted] 248 points249 points  (28 children)

She probably thought she was still in college. Burden of proof is not on the suspect in real life unlike what she learned in her CC years.

[–]UnpluggedMaestro 48 points49 points  (5 children)

In other words: "Welcome to the real world, jackass."

Or at least until the feminists successfully lobby for the implementation of a nation-wide Title IX applicable to everyone.

[–]Boss_Monkey 14 points15 points  (3 children)

We should take turns guessing the Orwellian name they will apply to it as legislation.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 8 points9 points  (1 child)

We should take turns guessing the Orwellian name they will apply to it as legislation.

no means no => yes means yes => Feelz Means Yes*

*or no

[–]Boss_Monkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

in mansplain orwellian that translates as: the 2016 logic dictates reason act.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (5 children)

Unless you live in the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Or Sweden

The article was one I translated from Swedish to English but can't find it. A girl accused a teen of rape, the boy provided vid of her consenting, the court charges him cuz he didn't respect her privacy (as he recorded without consent), so the boy pays her, and both are free to go

[–]Elodrian 40 points41 points  (3 children)

So, for the Swedish scenario, the correct line of play would be to move to trial, allow prosecution to present it's case, get the girl on the record claiming lack of consent on cross. Move for dismissal for not meeting burden of proof, if the motion passes, walk away. If not, only then present the video in defence. At that point the trial should go your way. Afterwords, you might still get charged for making the recording, but the girl also gets charged with perjury. Maybe they drop the whole thing at that point. At least during the video tape trial you can claim the girl consented to being recorded; if she says she didn't, it's your word against the word of a known perjurer.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Something tells me you do this for a living.

[–]BadinBoarder 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So many women have pulled this shit on him that now he's a pro

[–]_NotUnidan_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I remember that article. IIRC, he was charged for showing it to all his friends, not just the court.

[–]ubercoolhipsterguy 64 points65 points  (6 children)

Don't worry, she'll probably just sleep with her next couple of bosses until she hits the wall and has to take a retail job for minimum wage

[–]Johnny10toes 49 points50 points  (5 children)

Or marry a BB and tell him about the rape and how they wouldn't believe her. He'll save her.

[–]ubercoolhipsterguy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Or pay for her developed laziness while she balloons on the sofa in front of an episode of The Bachelorette wondering why she can't be as pretty as the actresses as she slowly develops heart problems and expects the government yo pay for her quadruple bypass surgery

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]SilverWolfeBlade 16 points17 points  (1 child)

    Read the fucking sidebar you greenhorn

    [–]tuxedoburrito 4 points5 points  (8 children)

    What does this mean? Burden of proof?

    [–]IWouldRatherBeDerpin 36 points37 points  (5 children)

    Having the burden of proof means it is your responsibility to prove your own point or claim.

    Say for example, you wanted to buy some beer, and even though you are 21, you look 17. At the liquor store, when the cashier asks how old you are, and you say 21, the burden of proof lies with you, meaning you have to prove to her that you are old enough (show her I.D.) The burden of proof is not on the cashier for two reasons. One, you are the one making a claim, by saying you are 21. Second, how could she possibly prove that you are not 21. While it may be possible, it is far easier for you to prove you are, than for her to prove you are not. Burden of proof is usually logically placed on the person whom can more easily provide proof.

    Burden of proof in a rape case, in the real world anyway, is placed on the victim, with help from the police. If someone claims they were raped, they give details to the police, who look into it and see if there was a crime. If a crime was committed, 999 times out of 1000, they will find evidence and further action will be taken. This is the most efficient and effective way of placing the burden of proof in a rape case. In many college campus rape cases, as the guy above you was referencing, the burden of proof is handled the opposite way. A girl will say that Mr. Thundercock raped her, and then the campus White Knights Guidance Counselors will ask Mr. Thundercock to prove that he did not rape her. Something that while may be possible, in most cases cannot be done.

    [–]tuxedoburrito 13 points14 points  (3 children)

    Thank you for explaining.

    I was confused because so often I've only heard of people siding with the rape victim regardless of proof.

    [–]trphardmode 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Being the victim is like starting with a million dollar lawyer budget - the legal system still favors the party with the actual multimillion dollar lawyer budget.

    [–]1nzgs 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    By using the label "rape victim" you are siding with them by default.

    [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I was confused because so often I've only heard of people siding with the rape victim regardless of proof.

    There has been a lot of criticism of how rape cases are handled. People used to blame the victim and say "was it really rape?". Now you have to believe the woman and the police are under a lot of pressure to increase their conviction rate.

    All of which means false rape allegations are increasing even while rape is down 85% in the West (probably due to better policing, DNA testing and lack of lead in petrol. google for more info on this).

    [–]Turniman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    It's not only in the case of rape. In EVERY case, in modern Western law, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, NOT the defendant. This new law putting the burden of proof on the defendant is a massive breach; its implications go far - all in the name of feels.

    Let's look at another horrendous crime: murder. We all hate murder and want less of it (at least, I hope so). However, the burden of proof still shouldn't, and doesn't, lie with the person accused of the murder. Agreeing with this doesn't mean you agree with murder; it means you agree with due process. I really hate how agreeing with the fact that the burden of proof shouldn't be on the accused is immediately shouted down as "rape apologists" or "victim blaming" by a large segment of the population.

    [–]TheDialecticParadox 105 points106 points  (0 children)

    I remember about 2 weeks ago I was sitting at a park bench having some beers with some friends when one of the guys started reading this article out-loud from a newspaper he was skimming.

    A detail that wasn't covered in OP's source was that she was having a long-standing affair with her boss and when found out she was going to get sacked by her boss the next morning, she decided she would burn everything to the ground before she was dragged away kicking and screaming. So she trashed the house and screamed "RAPE!"

    I burst out laughing and called her a stupid bitch and one of the girls on the other table near us gave me filthy looks, which made me laugh even harder.

    [–]akjoltoy 38 points39 points  (0 children)

    Don't you guys know that 99.9% of all women are brutally raped in college

    And the ones that make it out alive... make 1% as much in the same job as their male peers.

    [–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 60 points61 points  (10 children)

    I'm still very cynical that she will suffer any real consequences. Charges are one thing, convictions and sentencing are another. She certainly will not see any jail time. She probably won't see a fine. She will maybe see about 3-6 months probation and maybe some community service time in exchange for a plea deal.

    If either the judge or DA are feminists, forget about it.

    [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 37 points38 points  (6 children)

    Indeed. Women are children even in the eyes of the law, so when judgment is passed upon them they get grounded instead of convicted.

    [–]sarsar2 21 points22 points  (5 children)

    M'am you almost sent this man to prison, almost had him ostracized by friends and family, almost ruined his career or any opportunity of getting a stable job-- let's just say time served and call it even

    Whatever, western legal systems are a joke in so many ways that this kind of thing is just the tip of the iceberg

    [–]Grasshopper21 7 points8 points  (4 children)

    As someone with aspirations of becoming a judge, I can assure you that equal rights will be met with equal lefts.

    [–]StrokeGameHusky 8 points9 points  (3 children)

    Fuck yea, just keep that to yourself, they won't hire you with that kind of "equal justice" mentality..

    [–]Grasshopper21 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    This is why I have no ambition to work in family court in any aspect. I would play wayyyyy too much hardball.

    [–]TheDialecticParadox 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    The feminists would be rallying outside your office and courtroom every day. You would be booed and hissed at and you would wave at your loyal fans with a smirk.

    It would be a thing of true, pure beauty.

    [–]Grasshopper21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I feel like this is semi relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-EpD_Udss

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    At the very least, no decent employer will want to hire her after pulling this shit.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorNiftyDolphin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The cool thing is that hiring managers now have an easy counter to her inevitable sexual discrimination lawsuit when they pass on hiring her. They can just claim their lawyers told them she poses too much of a legal risk to hire.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I'd say she must be punished the same way as the "rapist". If you fuck with people's lifes, your life should be fucked.

    [–]flipofthewrists 30 points31 points  (3 children)

    AND SHE WOULD'VE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT TOO IF IT WASN'T FOR YOU MEDDLING FITBITS.

    Now women are going to have even less motivation to excersize.

    [–]juliusstreicher 9 points10 points  (2 children)

    Of course the fitbit showed that she was lying...it is a tool of the patriarchy.

    [–]StrokeGameHusky 16 points17 points  (1 child)

    Fitbit marketing team-- "how can we keep tabs on out wives without them knowing?"

    "We could design something fashionable for their wrists that would somehow track them"

    "Great Idea Johnson! We could easily make it a 'fitness tracker' and tell her it's counting her steps LOL"

    "The best part is, she will wear it all the time to show her friends she's into fitness"

    "Good point Stanley. Thank God I didn't hire that woman instead of you!"

    "Well, if you did, you would only have to pay her 77% of what you pay me! LOL

    whole meeting room laughs

    [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Fitbit wouls be a good way to catch a cheating LTR.

    "So you ran 5 miles in an apartment across town last night eh?"

    [–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 117 points118 points  (16 children)

    Wow, the 'victim' was named and the 'perpetrator' was kept anonymous. That's a first.

    On a Tuesday, police were called to the home where they found overturned furniture, a knife and a bottle of vodka,

    According to Florida Law, sexual battery (florida rape) involving a deadly weapon or bodily harm and when both of the defendants are over the age of 18...

    If the defendant used a deadly weapon or physical force likely to cause a serious bodily injury to a victim over the age of twelve during a sexual battery, the offense becomes punishable as a life felony.

    If that fitbit band was not found and this man was convicted, he would be placed in prison for at least 15 years to life in prison. I want to see this cunt do 1.5 dimes in the big house and placed on the public sex offender's registry just like the guy would have done. Probably never gonna happen. Cause women are shpecial and eternal victims of their circumstances. Her being fired was obviously sexual discrimination. Don't you know women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes? She's just attempting to acquire her entitled reparations from the misogynist acts of cis white male patriacharlists from antiquity! The 'sins' of the 10th great grandfather are paid by the 10th generation grandson. It's only fair.

    [–]randomuserwot 12 points13 points  (5 children)

    What sins anyway? That men were slaving away in the fields or went to war and had the chuzpe to ask the wife to take care of kids and the household? Yeah, women, the eternally oppressed.... when you compare them against aristocracy.

    [–]vacationlife- 21 points22 points  (3 children)

    theres a new "strong womyn" movie coming out about womens rights in the 1800-1900s britain

    it shows them "oppressed" and working at a laundromat, and how it was such a bad job. Of course they ignore the fact that men of the same economic class were working much shittier and more dangerous jobs like shoveling coal, but #feminism

    [–]randomuserwot 9 points10 points  (2 children)

    It's so disgusting, sometimes you just want to drop some Napalm on their fucking heads haha. Edit: It's really astonishing, that despite concrete evidence, such as the creation of expressionism, people still can't wrap their heads around such a simple truth. Expressionism EXPLICITLY shows how fucked up these men felt during these times. It's dark, it's gloomy, it screams of a life that is hell on earth.

    [–]vacationlife- 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    its so retarded how they make these movies, like blacks or women were fighting all the whites/men to "win rights". It's like... if most of the guys/whites didn't support what you wanted, you wouldn't have it

    in the trailer for the movie they have them throwing bricks through windows and saying che guevara type shit about how they are warriors... like really? lol

    [–]randomuserwot 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Delusions of grandeur are usually an expression of narcissism. Seems about right. So much stuff on the media today seems repulsive to oneself when one has discovered the false narrative behind it. All those romantic songs/movies/"kickass heroines" in whatever medium. Indoctrination through repetition seems to be the ulterior motive behind all that trash. And we know of its effectiveness.

    [–]cariboo_j 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Apex fallacy. Men lower in the dominance hierarchy are invisible. Because hypergamy. The female monkey brain is programmed to ignore men that have less wealth and status than her.

    [–]Diabolo_Advocato 26 points27 points  (3 children)

    Did you even read the short article in question. The chick claimed an unknown intruder broke in and committed the act, she didn't name anyone.

    She was playing the victim. A significant motive (implied in the article) was that she was about to be fired from her job. A fair assumption would be that it was a good job she didn't want to give up. With an open rape case under her belt, she could fight for all kinds of rights and protections, to include but not limited to, suing her employer for firing her during a time of trauma or some shit.

    [–]1Goomich 15 points16 points  (0 children)

    And now she has open 'false reports to law enforcement, false alarms to public safety, and tampering with evidence' case under her belt.

    Why can't I stop smilling?

    [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    With an open rape case under her belt

    And has the option to name her employer as the perpetrator at any later time, should he follow through with the firing. "Oh, I've suddenly remembered who he was!"

    [–]tuxedoburrito 8 points9 points  (4 children)

    Why don't people just hire more women than men?

    Like if that's the case. Just only hire women because it's way cheaper if they get paid less.

    [–]Kalepsis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Yeah. I want to see that happen in industries like construction.

    [–]vacationlife- 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    because if that was true, that women do the same work and get paid less, then that's exactly what would happen. and men would have to accept less, or women would be in more demand and get more $, and wages would then be equal

    so either women aren't getting paid less (spoiler alert: they are paid more), or women do not do the same quality of work (spoiler alert #2: true). How can this economic dichotomy remain in place when I just said something like this would equalize out? "progress", upheld by courts.

    [–]cariboo_j 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    They apparently believe men who run companies are SO "misogynistic" that they put ideology over profits.

    Patriarchy is a giant, all encompassing conspiracy. "Keeping women down" is more important than making profits to most CEOs and managers, apparently.

    [–]vacationlife- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    yeah, when you hear a libtard feminist jump from 'greedy corporations' to 'patriarchy not hiring women' its like... bitch do you even understand the words coming out of your mouth? lol

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    She was in Pennsylvania at the time.

    [–]IronMeltsinmyHands 22 points23 points  (5 children)

    It turns out that a fitness tracker can do more to betray you than showing your friends and families you’re a couch potato. It can also undermine your claims about being a victim of a crime.

    this cunt, regardless of all evidence, asserts that the liar was a victim, and that fitbit betrayed her by UNDERMINING her claim.

    How dare the truth come in the way of a woman and her cake?!/s

    [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Dont worry she don't need a cake she can just lick some donuts. /s

    [–]cuvluj 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I'm not sure the quoted person was saying that the woman in question really was raped. I think they were just saying the Fitbit ruined her claim to it.

    [–]ChangingSZNs 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    Yes, but would it really be "ruining" her claim? More like exposing her lie.

    [–]Sadpanda596 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Article was probably watching their ass - safer to say it "suggests she was lying" rather than to state conclusively that she was lying.

    Given the tone of the article there is nothing to suggest that's what the author is trying to say.

    [–]Elodrian -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    You've completely mis-read the tone of the article.

    [–]1oldredder 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Good to see a return to men being skeptical of rape claims. There was a time when almost none were seen as credible, and that was probably too far off the mark, but now credence is given to the most impossible fictions with no evidence demanded and that's bullshit.

    While not any kind of men's rights advocate this still has practical implications on pickup game and long-term sex-activity for us men. Like other obstacles or opportunities those who adapt will get the most sex for least risk / fuckups

    [–]ILoveSunflowers 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    shitlords cops telling rape victims how their fitbit is supposed to read when they get raped, sorry her fitbit didn't read like you think a rape victim should, oppressors

    /s

    [–]TRP VanguardCyralea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    As much as an Orwellian scenario frightens me, part of me wonders what aspects of life wouldn't be improved if we could simply read women's thoughts and track their every movement. How much bullshit would that cut down?

    That loss of liberty is dangerously tantalizing.

    [–]SubNoize 9 points10 points  (22 children)

    She should serve life in prison.

    [–]SpHornet 4 points5 points  (21 children)

    she didn't actually identify anyone, she just wasted police resources. life is a bit over the top for that offence

    [–]iSHOODApulldOUT 2 points3 points  (19 children)

    It would be nice if they made an example of her though and did it anyways, show others that this kind of shit isn't tolerated. But unfortunately that'll never happen.

    [–]SpHornet 4 points5 points  (18 children)

    you want spend 100s of thousands of taxdollars to 'make an example' of someone wasting resources? we both know a single 'example' is going to do shit, it will just be throwing money away

    [–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ 2 points3 points  (17 children)

    Examples do plenty when you call them by their appropriate name of "precedent" - It's done to men all the time and we're still dumb enough to keep getting married. Women, on the other hand, are much more prone to skittishness.

    This is a fucked up example from some shit I'm not suggesting or endorsing, but let me tell you: When you see a couple dozen prisoners and a woman who starts acting up during a check gets one in the head ...the men are still silently calculating, planning & hoping. The women all instantly disarmed, demoralized and destroyed - permanently.

    [–]SpHornet 0 points1 point  (16 children)

    precedent

    'precedent' is something different than 'making an example'. 'precedent' is using a case as a reference point, 'making an example' is trying to intimidate people into not doing the same.

    as a precedent, this is absolutely crazy, because we don't want to lock these women up for life for such a minor offense, it just cost to much money. 'making an example' makes more sense, but i doubt it will work.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ 0 points1 point  (15 children)

    I was alluding to the fact that in the insane world of legalese, the two are fairly intertwined.

    Every "example" becomes a reference range for future judgements.

    [–]SpHornet 0 points1 point  (14 children)

    and like i said; if we only look at it legally it is idiotic to 'make an example' out of her. Her crime is mild, nothing big, to give it a big sentence is a waste of resources, we don't want a waste of resources to act as precedent

    [–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    This is just a different of opinion but I don't fancy your interpretation of it being a mild crime - what this woman did, although she named no one, could've resulted in someone being in prison for 15-Life because if that FitBit hadn't been there causing a potential suspect to be identified who would've most likely been convicted without evidence if he didn't have a solid alibi. It is tantamount to attempted murder, look at every false conviction DNA exonerated case for that.

    Civilization isn't free, if it's to survive the price must be paid by those who'd detract from it, men and women alike

    Back in the day this was well understood & the penalties were severe enough for everyone to know their place.

    Today we debate if a whore trying to destroy the life of an (unnamed) man is a "serious offense".

    [–]SpHornet 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    could've resulted in someone being in prison for 15-Life

    only if she identified him (or didn't say he wasn't the one), a chance she would have had. it didn't came that that; you can't convict someone for a crime they might commit, you can only convict people for crimes they do commit. robberies can result in deaths, but that doesn't mean you can convict people that plan a robbery for murder

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]SpHornet 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      Had he been falsely convicted

      who is 'he'? there was no 'he'

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Cops are getting wiser about female nature and this shows.

      Hope she gets jail time.

      [–]TheColdDark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      What is the point of this post?

      [–]2Sepean 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This is why girls hate tech.

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Most women would not do this to avoid getting fired

      [–]BetterRedThanRed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      At very least she did not accuse one specific man...

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I'm just gonna stay away from the whole rape issue, but does it seem a bit odd that fitbit data would be admissible in court? I mean, hell, even polygraphs won't hold up...

      [–]mrp3anut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Polygraphs aren't admissible because they don't represent "beyond a reasonable doubt" because they have shown to be fallible. Fitbit data could go either way. If your fitbit showed that you were at the grocery store but your story was that you were at home being raped then it would have to be admitted.

      Also I don't believe the prosecution can have evidence from the defense thrown out. Only the defense can do that to things the prosecution presents. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution so anything you have to offer in defense would logically be admissible.

      [–]rpscrote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Get fucked by the long dick of the law. Legal rules are pure logic and though emotion sways judges and juries, pure law will win with evidence.

      [–]reddumpling -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      I guess they're looking into the Fitbit data to find out if she had involuntary rigorous exercise at the point of rape, you know. Then contradicting evidence was exposed.

      Sadly she most probably won't face much consequences, if any.

      [–]nefuratios -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      This is why we need complete surveillance. If I'm ever falsely accused I'd like to have an alibi in form of satellite imagery, recorded phone calls and video surveillance footage.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]