Gibbons Will Not Be Prosecuted
Courtesy of KTNV Las Vegas News
Gibbons will not be prosecuted for allegedly assaulting Chrissy Mazzeo in November which isn’t a surprise by any means. Its pretty much the norm in sexual assault cases nationwide. Sexual assault cases rarely go to court, particularly when persons of note are involved. Less than 20% of all reported sexual assault cases ever end up in the courtroom because of the lack of evidence. After all, the only witnesses to sexual assaults are usually the perpetrator and the victim. And it is estimated that only 4-6% of sexual assault cases are based on false accusations in this country. Is it possible that Mazzeo is part of the 4-6% that make false accusations of assault? Its certainly possible, but we’ll never really know. In the end neither Gibbons or Mazzeo was served well by the Three Stooges-like investigation conducted by Sheriff Young’s Metro Police. Because Gibbons clearly received some form of preferential treatment by Sheriff Young and because he lied to investigators, there will always be doubts about his actions that night in the minds of many. As for Mazzeo, who was victimized by Metro and Young during the investigation, she will never be able to fully trust law enforcement officials again. The real casulaties are the future male and female assault victims who will hesitate to pursue charges in the future because of the very public way the Mazzeo case was mishandled.
It will be very interesting to see if there is any evidence of interference with the investigation. Its sort of symbolic that Sig Rogich was the only person seen on the garage video tapes isn’t it?
Similar Posts:
- Metro Police Recommend No Criminal Charges Filed in Gibbons Mazzeo Case
- Young Should Remove Himself From The Gibbons Mazzeo Investigation
- Collection of Chrissy Mazzeo Related Posts
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] It looks like no one knows how to categorize the money donated/contributed to Governor Gibbons’ legal defense fund–including Gibbons and his staff/lawyers, and just like Gibbons allegedly thought that night in the parking garage to Mazzeo, Secretary of State Miller is not letting this one go. From Miller’s second letter on Vegas Pundit’s site: On March 7, 2007, my office sent you a letter requesting clarification of the information contained in your March 6, 2007 Amended Financial Disclosure Statement. On March 9, 2007, my office received a response letter from a law firm claiming to be your legal representative. While I appreciate the timely response sent on your behalf, it failed to substantively address the issues set forth in my inquiry. [...]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Posted by Mynx on November 20 “The usage of “females” reduces women to their body parts. Females are much easier to manage than women.”
Yet you post in this article about “male” and “female” victims. I demand you call me a man because I just can’t believe you reduced me to my body parts. The horror of it all. Also, the fact that you call out John Ralston for him using “female” instead of “woman” in a column and then doing it yourself reeks of irony. I guess feminism only matters when you want it to.
For those of you trying to follow Paul’s silly argument at home–here’s the post with the original comment about Ralston’s curious language choice: http://www.renodiscontent.com/2006/11/20/reno-and-beyond-5/
You use language the way it makes sense. Which sounds more grammatically correct to you? “male and female victims” or “men and women victims?” Duh. You don’t have to be an English professor to get that one.
My biggest problem with the usage you mention in the Ralston piece was that he was inconsistent. (Yes, apparently I have to try and explain AGAIN!) Using the word “men” and then “females” rather than “women” doesn’t make grammatical sense. See the difference? Its the choice Ralston made to use the word “female” rather than “women” which would have mirrored his use of the word men in that specific case that I called into question. Are you guys ever going to get this? Seriously? Grasping at straws in clumsy efforts to nail the silly feminist makes you look a bit, well, silly.
Good post, Myrna–I totally agree
Silly argument? Sounds like you’re making a right silly argument yourself. Yes, Ralston’s work wasn’t grammatically correct. Who cares, getting your panties in a bunch about inconsistencies is small minded. Males don’t care about trifles such as being called some totally arbitrary thing. Maybe people could take feminists a little more serious if they didn’t mention crap like this and then write that ending a sentence with a preposition doesn’t matter. I guess pointing out grammatical flaws are alright when it suits your case but other times we shouldn’t bother? I’m not sure there is any logic to that thought (or lack thereof) of yours.