Teenage migrant 'raped and strangled 90-year-old German woman as she left church

172 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, john g. said:

Just a teeny weeny question: if,. instead of this 90 year old woman having been raped by this shitty youngster..it had been you. How would you have posted?

So naive, babe, so naive.

 

This is critical in work against rape, actually. It is one of the things that defines our direction, our defeats, our gains.

 

I want to share the commonly accepted healing perspective because I know many of us are equally disgusted, offended, angered when rape happens. 

 

Questioning empathy, however, asking each other "what would you do if it were you" is a bit risky I think because the argumentative credibility of the other side now kind of depends on "personal disclosure", which is better when left to every individual. Or a victim now does not have the space to respond from a personal perspective, unless they wish disclosure. This directs all rape talk to become a space of the supposedly non-raped unless a victim has shed a lot of trauma. For others, it is very silencing. 

 

Something like "well but I am, or how do you know that I'm not" would have a strong emotional appeal but rape activism is not the job of rape victims only. And incredible as it is, in heated moments, this may extend to judging some rape victims as "traitors" and all sorts of things, which is not only politically problematic but also traumatising. People genuiely working on rape have made all these mistakes. It is a bit like, when you are an HIV activist, you see that curious question in people's eyes - is she positive, too?

 

I have read elsewhere on TT people sharing "heard stuff" about what has happened sexually to someone defending migrants on this forum, again "wondering" if she has learnt. This, "have you learnt your lesson now?" perspective is also dangerous - in addition to all problems it contains to put it mildly-  because it reduces a victim to rape. A victim is entitled to all sorts of opinions regardless of rape. A victim does not have to be defined by rape or any violence perpetrated against them, not by themselves or anyone or any violence perpetrated against them. Victims have choices as much as anyone else.

 

Personally, I see myself quite capable of defending the nation or whatever of "my" perp - how these things become "ours" is another issue - at an anti-racist campaign against that race. Luckily, neither perps defend nations nor does my connection with my anti-nationalist stance passes through a perp's dick. All victims are entitled to their politics. 

 

This is exactly why Judith Herman, one of the most proponent experts on trauma - whose recovery programme is promoted in many places from US Veteran organizations to small feminist groups- says it is the responsibility of the victim to heal because if one does not, one becomes an abuser. Core knowledge, in abuse and trauma studies. Not limited to rape. 

 

Other than that, victims in initial stages of healing can have all sorts of feelings around anger. If they are in an unsupportive environment - denial, invalidation, guilting etc- that anger causes an increase in the psychopathic index in many inventories like Minnesota. If this is not known, or defended properly in court (in stupid ignorant legal systems), the victim will be tagged even as a psychopath now, or someone with a personality disorder, with the familiar perp grinning. 

 

But there is healing, from victim to survivor to thriver in the grief process. Victims will remember beginnings of these phases, the "creative action" stage that goes toward thriving, when they don't feel so consumed by rape anymore. The role of the "private" or "personal" changes a lot in this. 

Just wanted to share this because I think some of us are very genuine in our anger, feelings. I sometimes think, emotionally, many of us are at the victim stage. And that,also, doesn't solve much. We need to move forward. I have seen women killing their perps in their sleep. I have seen women chopping heads because of this. We have defended them on the basis of ongoing violence and its traumatic effects. But at the same time, defending victims, we also need to move from the initial stages of grief because when we are stuck there, violence becomes contagious. Women start killing, too or victims start committing quite cruel crimes. If we don't move forward, it becomes very hard to defend the original victims as well. That's why.

 

 

 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, desdemona said:

Why do you always sound so mad, SD? Why can't you put your point (if any at all) across in a normal way like the rest of the posters do, without having to attack or insult anybody? Whenever you started barking, threads would spiral down into bickery and end up being closed. Forum is an extension of real life. People carry themselves here more or less like how they do outside. Is that how you communicate with people in real life? By barking and insulting people whose opinions you disagree with? 

@kiplette

@desdemona

 

SD's madness has method. It is not enough to make a point rather to derail yet another valid topic on a current event. Through her typical M.O. ad hominin attacking, insulting members, willfully violating TT's Code of Conduct  without fear of consequences leaves the impression that the owners and moderators condone this behavior and side with her on the issue. What other conclusion can be drawn as one side has their posts removed or moderated but her abusive rants remain intact?

 

The result of these bulling tactics is to shutdown discourse as others fear they will be equated with a racist or islamaphobic simply by discussing the topic at hand.

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, desdemona said:

Why do you always sound so mad, SD? Why can't you put your point (if any at all) across in a normal way like the rest of the posters do, without having to attack or insult anybody? Whenever you started barking, threads would spiral down into bickery and end up being closed.

 

Personally, I think her hysterical tirades belong in the vent thread and nowhere else. 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually support the extremism of someone's daughter because it highlights the alt rightist attitudes on TT that have somehow become normalised.

 

Lots of posters on TT that i used to associate with middle of the road social democrats have morphed into xenophobic, racist individuals that i no longer recognise. 

 

Despite posts from the likes of Goodbob who has disappeared it seems, these people seem to believe they retain a moral high ground that has nothing to do with the normal interaction of just being human. 

 

It is this ethos of being better and that all the shit things that occur are the fault of those lesser. There is no recognition that you can come here as a refugee but have no right to work or integrate. The dream of coming to a land where you can live the dream of democracy does not exist unless you happen to be sponsored by one of the big German firms. Lots of black, Chinese, Arabs and Turks are fortunate enough to have this opportunity becausr they are cheap to hire but huge amounts of people coming to Europe don't have that advantage.

 

Funnily enough, we will support the right of those sponsored people, who often come from privileged backgrounds, but we look at the smarter and more qualified as worthless refugees. LOL

 

The hypocrisy is astounding...

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, someonesdaughter said:

There are more reasons than only socioeconomic ones – but you know that very well. Keeping birth rates low would also reduce crime. Whether that's feasible is a different question.

Yes, reducing the birth rate would lower crime - but not the crime rate. Which is what I was talking about. You can´t deny that foreigners are heavily overrepresented among prison inmates, especially "refugees" who account for 18% of them, so stop digging that hole. Socioeconomic, cultural, emotional, psychological, financial or whatever reasons - I want the crime rate to be reduced. If need be by creating refugee camps and confining refugees to those until vetted (with all the unavoidable arbitrariness) low risk. There would still be crime within those camps but at least the general local public won´t be affected.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, has any one any news how the victim of the attack is doing? At 90, not only is the body frail but the mind could be as well and so often elderley that are assaulted die within a few months of a vicious attack.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, topcat 1 said:

I actually support the extremism of someone's daughter because it highlights the alt rightist attitudes on TT that have somehow become normalised.

 

Lots of posters on TT that i used to associate with middle of the road social democrats have morphed into xenophobic, racist individuals that i no longer recognise. 

 

Despite posts from the likes of Goodbob who has disappeared it seems, these people seem to believe they retain a moral high ground that has nothing to do with the normal interaction of just being human. 

 

It is this ethos of being better and that all the shit things that occur are the fault of those lesser. There is no recognition that you can come here as a refugee but have no right to work or integrate. The dream of coming to a land where you can live the dream of democracy does not exist unless you happen to be sponsored by one of the big German firms. Lots of black, Chinese, Arabs and Turks are fortunate enough to have this opportunity becausr they are cheap to hire but huge amounts of people coming to Europe don't have that advantage.

 

Funnily enough, we will support the right of those sponsored people, who often come from privileged backgrounds, but we look at the smarter and more qualified as worthless refugees. LOL

 

The hypocrisy is astounding...

Well, actually, no one has the right to work. If you have the skills that an employer wants and prepared to work for the pay given then you have the same chance as everyone else. True refugees who come here are here because their lives are threatened in their home country. When people from countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, Morocco or Ghana come to Europe to claim Asylum then you have to ask the question why are they really here? As for more qualified and smarter refugees, if they can prove that they are who they say they are with the skills they say they have and are truly fleeing persecussion then they will be given leave to stay. The issue is with the chancers and weeding them out takes time and effort. In the mean time more are arriving in Europe, We do not have the economy to support them as well as the needy within Europe. How can a country such as Greece that is virtually bankrupt support thousands of refugees? How can Germany with an ageing population and an expensive welfare system then afford to take on a million + users of that welfare system who then are unlikely to contribute to that welfare system? There might be jobs but there are enough unemployed In Europe that need the work and a number of these jobs are low paid that require minimal tax or social insurance contributions to be paid.

 

I think saying social democrats have morphed into xenephobes is a bit strong. A lot of these live in the cities, they see the crime rate go up, they see the social services being put under strain, they worry for their families. They don't see much effort being put into intergration, into accepting the laws and culture of Germany. Passing B1 and doing a 3 week intergration course is not intergrating. Naturally people will be concerned but if they came across an accident where a refugee was injured, these same xenephobes will probably show concern and a wish to help another Human being.

 

Someonesdaughter does not help her cause with her constantly frictional approach. It winds people up, she uses accusations, she tries to twist round what people say, she presumes to know what they think and what their attitudes are. If she wants to be heard and taken seriously, she has to understand that she has to stop using the religious or race card all the time and stop directly attacking individuals but actually put forward a well constructed point of view. We need alternative thinkers to ensure there is good debate and interest. What we don't need is everything being reduced to a slanging match.

 

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, French bean said:

so, has any one any news how the victim of the attack is doing? At 90, not only is the body frail but the mind could be as well and so often elderley that are assaulted die within a few months of a vicious attack.

 

I read here that the victim is now 91 and the court is considering whether the poor woman can be spared the humiliation, stress and fear of having to give testimony in front of her tormentor since he has already confessed to everything.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/duesseldorf-19-jaehriger-gesteht-vergewaltigung-von-90-jahre-alter-frau-a-1139123.html

Quote

Das Gericht prüft nun, ob der inzwischen 91 Jahre alten Frau angesichts des Geständnisses die Aussage vor Gericht erspart werden kann.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sr5dnptylno said:

 

I read here that the victim is now 91 and the court is considering whether the poor woman can be spared the humiliation, stress and fear of having to give testimony in front of her tormentor since he has already confessed to everything.

 

 

 

Yes please! It's so unnecessary to put the poor lady into more stress by dragging her into the court. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, topcat 1 said:

I actually support the extremism of someone's daughter because it highlights the alt rightist attitudes on TT that have somehow become normalised.

 

You obviously support a left extremist view, then. The antifa type, that the Verfassungsschutz observes because of their violent tendencies.

 

Quote

 

6 hours ago, topcat 1 said:

 

I actually support the extremism of someone's daughter because it highlights the alt rightist attitudes on TT that have somehow become normalised.

 

Lots of posters on TT that i used to associate with middle of the road social democrats have morphed into xenophobic, racist individuals that i no longer recognise. 

 

Despite posts from the likes of Goodbob who has disappeared it seems, these people seem to believe they retain a moral high ground that has nothing to do with the normal interaction of just being human. 

 

It is this ethos of being better and that all the shit things that occur are the fault of those lesser. There is no recognition that you can come here as a refugee but have no right to work or integrate. The dream of coming to a land where you can live the dream of democracy does not exist unless you happen to be sponsored by one of the big German firms. Lots of black, Chinese, Arabs and Turks are fortunate enough to have this opportunity becausr they are cheap to hire but huge amounts of people coming to Europe don't have that advantage.

 

Funnily enough, we will support the right of those sponsored people, who often come from privileged backgrounds, but we look at the smarter and more qualified as worthless refugees. LOL

 

The hypocrisy is astounding...

 

 

Most of the posters you call alt right and who SD calls Besorgte are not against refugees in general. People are willing to support genuine asylum seekers, but not the rest that have jumped on the asylum bandwaggon. The government created a huge balls up waving all and sundry who showed up at the borders through. Amris was a wake up call and with elections looming they are now trying to sort out the mess they created.

 

There are hundreds of Gefährders like Amris on the loose threatening the safety of citizens in Germany. There are hundreds of refugee welfare fraudsters deliberately registering multiple times for handouts. I read German articles. Most of the refugees are unemployable and most of them refuse an Ausbildung. Many of those who have been granted asylum are expected to look for a flat to live in but end up homeless because there are not enough flats going round for everyone. Lots of them are taking up space in the asylum shelters, which should be made free for new asylum seekers. Additionally the many unaccompanied minors are a big problem and a huge cost factor. The courts are chock-a-block with asylum claims. Recently I read an article about the asylum industry, which is very beneficial for the so-called asylum profiteers, such as lawyers specialised in this field. The public is paying. Some pie-in-the sky politicians want the ban on family reunification lifted, but where should they live with flats being so scarce?  They don't seem to think these things through. Without the many charity organisations and volunteers the whole system would collapse. There are too many fake refugees jumping on the asylum bandwagon upsetting the whole asylum system, which is for genuine refugees only. Deportations are difficult to implement and so on. 

 

These are all legitimate concerns and the politicians in election year are at last responding with tougher talk of correction measures. 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sr5dnptylno said:

 

I read here that the victim is now 91 and the court is considering whether the poor woman can be spared the humiliation, stress and fear of having to give testimony in front of her tormentor since he has already confessed to everything.

 

 

 

 

Correct motive, wrong justification. They should want to protect the victim regardless of whether the perp has confessed or not. What would they do if the perp had not confessed? Bring an elderly person to face her perp, which runs many health risks at that age, so that the "justice" procedure is better because she has blamed someone to their face? Great. The entire system needs to be more victim friendly but courts still have this mentality. "Privilege" is something granted by courts at many levels. Why not build the reasoning on something properly on the side of plaintiff? 

 

Plus, what is this "he has already confessed"? The perp didn't use a condom, they found the guy's semen in this woman's vagina. Confess or not. How did that 90 year old put that semen there FFS? 

 

Do a test, the woman has been hassled in all sorts of ways, pulled and dragged etc. She went to the hospital. She has evidence of physical harm. Probably, she wasn't found in the most comfortable of conditions. 

 

But a "confession", a discussion about whether she "consented" needs to be done. Why? Because under the cloak of objectivity, there is still the assumption that a woman, in this case a 90 year old can consent under these circumstances, after all that she experienced - threats about money etc- and then she can go and have sex with this bloke with her will and then can go and sue this bloke with false allegations. How just is that?

 

What kind of values make these reasonings possible in law systems?  Objectivity in justice? The innocent until "proven" guilty thing? How objective is that with the logic above? Welcome to "evidence-based" stuff in rape. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zeino said:

 

Correct motive, wrong justification. They should want to protect the victim regardless of whether the perp has confessed or not. What would they do if the perp had not confessed? Bring an elderly person to face her perp, which runs many health risks at that age, so that the "justice" procedure is better because she has blamed someone to their face? Great. The entire system needs to be more victim friendly but courts still have this mentality.  

 

 

I´m afraid you have to balance the burden on the victim against the right of the accused to a fair trial. Identification and the victims account of events are important parts of the puzzle, after all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a bit about this, the underlying assumption there. That objectivity is not based on objective assumptions itself. There are discussions about shifting the onus in these cases - law experts, professors etc make these arguments. They are not uninformed fantasy. 

 

But when women bring these up, they are called maniacs, feminazis, manhaters. Also stupid because rape doesn't occur only on a heterosexual basis. Still gives a break from being called someone with a sexual migrant fetish :)

 

The legal argument has basis from rape as part of war crimes. In those rulings, victims (one by one) do not have to "prove" that they are raped.

 

The "onus" has been shifted. We can also discuss shifting onus in different ways. This debate has been ongoing for quite a time now but of course never attracts interest as much as more scandalous stuff. 

 

We can make citizenship rights "alienable" in our minds for instance, but this other thing seems too extreme, so unthinkable. 

 

But of course this would apply to everyone. And people would want to stop it. Until then, waiting for confession from an alleged perf - even if you have semen in your 90 year old body, even if you have signs of physical assault, even if you have a therapist's observations wil be considered "justice". 

 

Do you for a second believe that this woman consented to this? I think no. The usual innocence clause may cause many women lose these cases though. Do you find it acceptable? Or can we develop - or at least envision to develop- better justice? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bramble said:

 

You obviously support a left extremist view, then. The antifa type, that the Verfassungsschutz observes because of their violent tendencies. These are all legitimate concerns and the politicians in election year are at last responding with tougher talk of correction measures. 


Indeed. Just as we have seen here on TT, in the "real-world" these violent transgressions, bullying on the part of antifa & co. are tolerated because THEY presume to represent the moral high-ground. It's so easy when one group is allowed to call everyone that disagrees with Flüchtlingpolitik a Nazi or racist.

 

 

Quote

 

Most of the posters you call alt right and who SD calls Besorgte are not against refugees in general. People are willing to support genuine asylum seekers, but not the rest that have jumped on the asylum bandwaggon. The government created a huge balls up waving all and sundry who showed up at the borders through. Amris was a wake up call and with elections looming they are now trying to sort out the mess they created.


The pejorative labling of citizens concerned about saftey "Besorgte" in the wake of the EU migrant disaster which they themselves facillitated is a perfect example of their tactics. I seriously doubt the election will result in any significant change. On the contrary, if Schultz is elected I'm sure he will throw the doors open even wider.

The candidates up for election are flying a bird with two left wings.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, desdemona said:

Why do you always sound so mad, SD? Why can't you put your point (if any at all) across in a normal way like the rest of the posters do, without having to attack or insult anybody? 

 

Haha, do you really think, the "rest of the posters" make their points in a "normal way"?

 

Are those 'me and many others reported you, I want you to be banned' comments normal for you? Are the sexiest "babe"-comments? Are the the wrong accusations of "flagrant violations", are the 'are you drunk' and 'tell that the victims' comments? Do you think that's normal? But what standards? Is it "right" to accuse others of being "militant antifa elements" while whining about being called a nazi? 

 

That sounds mad to me, desdemona. 

 

You must be very happy with this mornings harvest of "normal" besorgte stuff:

 

"SD's madness has method... ad hominin attacking, insulting members, willfully violating TT's Code of Conduct ...  leaves the impression that the owners and moderators condone this behavior and side with her on the issue."

 

According to you that's "normal": ad hominem, insulting lies and a crazy conspiration theory.

 

"Personally, I think her hysterical tirades belong in the vent thread and nowhere else."

 

According to you that's "normal".

 

"You obviously support a left extremist view, then. The antifa type, that the Verfassungsschutz observes because of their violent tendencies."

 

According to you that's "normal".

 

If topcat would write that bramble obviously supported a right extremist view, the nazi type, that the courts sentenced because their violent activities the outrage would be tremendous. 

 

But he didn't write that. It's only Bramble, putting his point in a way you consider as "normal".  LOL

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sr5dnptylno said:


Indeed. Just as we have seen here on TT, in the "real-world" these violent transgressions, bullying on the part of antifa & co. are tolerated because THEY presume to represent the moral high-ground. It's so easy when one group is allowed to call everyone that disagrees with Flüchtlingpolitik a Nazi or racist.

 

 

I agree. Germany's past makes it very difficult for them to say anything against foreigners, and makes it very easy for the foreigners to abuse the system. The question is, how do you change that without being "Nazi"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sr5dnptylno said:


Indeed. Just as we have seen here on TT, in the "real-world" these violent transgressions, bullying on the part of antifa & co. are tolerated because THEY presume to represent the moral high-ground. It's so easy when one group is allowed to call everyone that disagrees with Flüchtlingpolitik a Nazi or racist.

 

 

It's so easy to label everyone that disagrees with your extreme views about Flüchtlingpolitik as "antifa & co." – and it's tolerated, for whatever reasons... is it because YOU presume to represent the moral high-ground? Enlighten me!

 

 'The hypocrisy is astounding...'

 

6 minutes ago, sr5dnptylno said:

The pejorative labling of citizens concerned about saftey "Besorgte" in the wake of the EU migrant disaster which they themselves facillitated is a perfect example of their tactics.

 

While labeling citizens concerned about the rise of racism, hate and violence as "antifa & co." is perfectly legitimated and, according to Desdemona, "normal". Go on, do your normal besorgte stuff! 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a question of race, creed, or whatever. It's a question of respect for women. If one of these animals rapes my wife or daughter, I'll kill them. That has nothing to do with "Nazi".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, someonesdaughter said:

 

Haha, do you really think, the "rest of the posters" make their points in a "normal way"?

 

Are those 'me and many others reported you, I want you to be banned' comments normal for you? Are the sexiest "babe"-comments? Are the the wrong accusations of "flagrant violations", are the 'are you drunk' and 'tell that the victims' comments? Do you think that's normal? But what standards? Is it "right" to accuse others of being "militant antifa elements" while whining about being called a nazi? 

 

That sounds mad to me, desdemona. 

 

You must be very happy with this mornings harvest of "normal" besorgte stuff:

 

"SD's madness has method... ad hominin attacking, insulting members, willfully violating TT's Code of Conduct ...  leaves the impression that the owners and moderators condone this behavior and side with her on the issue."

 

According to you that's "normal": ad hominem, insulting lies and a crazy conspiration theory.

 

"Personally, I think her hysterical tirades belong in the vent thread and nowhere else."

 

According to you that's "normal".

 

"You obviously support a left extremist view, then. The antifa type, that the Verfassungsschutz observes because of their violent tendencies."

 

According to you that's "normal".

 

If topcat would write that bramble obviously supported a right extremist view, the nazi type, that the courts sentenced because their violent activities the outrage would be tremendous. 

 

But he didn't write that. It's only Bramble, putting his point in a way you consider as "normal".  LOL

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing sexist about the word "babe"! I use it often when talking to men and women. See it as a compliment that you are much younger than me ! Ageist? That is possible? but more likely " generationist " :

" I got you babe "

" baby come on light my fire "

the Busby Babes ( you can google that if you want!).

Babe Ruth

 

My mum called absolutely everyone - friend or stranger - " babe " . 

 

So lighten up, please, those who interpret racism and sexism in every comment!

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, john g. said:

 

My mum called absolutely everyone - friend or stranger - " babe " . 

 

That has nothing to do with your mum (how old are you?), it has to do with respect – something you want to see from others but not grant yourself. 

 

But I suppose that's also "normal".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now