Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
nickramone

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #31 
It's funny - a convicted rapist (judged fairly according to the judicial system, innocent until he was proved to be guilty) serves less than half his term for an utterly heinous crime, deserves our understanding, forgiveness & compassion...

...but if Mike Love mentions that he co-wrote Wild Honey, he's worse than Hitler.

It' not a case of 'poor judgement on both sides', and it's not a time to look down on someone because they let themselves get into a vulnerable situation and then took the advice of legal counsel and tried to get all they could out of it.

What happened to that girl that night is something she will more than likely never, ever get over...and will very likely affect many aspects of how she lives her life moving forward, just because some jumped up session musician couldn't control himself and his ego.

0
Ang Jones

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,042
Reply with quote  #32 
What has Mike Love to do with this? But as you have mentioned him, it isn't just because of one comment that he comes in for criticism - as you well know. There is a long history of comments by Mike Love that have caused some people to develop a negative attitude towards him.

As for the case against Scott, as I've already written, a pity that they didn't take a blood sample so they could determine his own blood alcohol level. It's things that this that no doubt make some wonder how fairly he was judged. Of course even had he been completely inebriated, it doesn't justify rape but there was poor judgement on both sides if Scott got drunk to the point where he lost all self control and the woman got so drunk she was unconscious when this "heinous" crime happened to her. 

"Jumped up session musician" - Scott may have been convicted of rape but he was and is a talented musician and song writer. Plays more instruments than Mike but perhaps you wouldn't be so dismissive of him. Quite a few gifted people have been convicted of crimes. Phil Spector, Caravaggio... I could go on but I won't bother. Having committed a crime doesn't reduce talent and being law abiding doesn't unfortunately make anyone talented either.
0
nickramone

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ang Jones
What has Mike Love to do with this? But as you have mentioned him, it isn't just because of one comment that he comes in for criticism - as you well know. There is a long history of comments by Mike Love that have caused some people to develop a negative attitude towards him.

As for the case against Scott, as I've already written, a pity that they didn't take a blood sample so they could determine his own blood alcohol level. It's things that this that no doubt make some wonder how fairly he was judged. Of course even had he been completely inebriated, it doesn't justify rape but there was poor judgement on both sides if Scott got drunk to the point where he lost all self control and the woman got so drunk she was unconscious when this "heinous" crime happened to her. 

"Jumped up session musician" - Scott may have been convicted of rape but he was and is a talented musician and song writer. Plays more instruments than Mike but perhaps you wouldn't be so dismissive of him. Quite a few gifted people have been convicted of crimes. Phil Spector, Caravaggio... I could go on but I won't bother. Having committed a crime doesn't reduce talent and being law abiding doesn't unfortunately make anyone talented either.


My point on Mike Love was merely to illustrate that taking credit for other peoples songs (regardless of how long he has been doing it for) is clearly more upsetting to some people in this community than the horrible crime that Scott Bennett committed. I'm no apologist for the way Mike Love behaves.

His blood alcohol level would have absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed, he either did it, or he didn't. that's what he would be judged on. If I go out and murder someone after drinking three bottles of Vodka, would that mean I would get a lesser sentence, because I was wasted? of course not.

I think you're missing the point here, Ang. I'm not saying that Scott Bennett breaking the law makes him any less talented, I'm saying it makes him less of a person, and for him to plead not guilty, and deny what he did is disgusting.

Yes, Phil Spector is a talented guy that was convicted of a crime - is anyone 'wishing him well'? hoping he 'moves on from this'?, or suggesting his blood alcohol level be tested? no, they're not...but then again, he didn't spend 10 minutes talking to them after a gig.


0
nickramone

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ang Jones
PS:

It's a line that's easily crossed. 



What is?
Given Mr Love's penchant for Lawsuits, I'd be incredibly careful!

It would appear that you're trying to back up Bennett's behavior by pointing out Mike Love (and maybe other members of the Beach Boys) were involved with underage girls in their touring days, and saying it's an 'easy line to cross'.

and unless someone comes forward and accuses him of any wrongdoing, I wouldn't even think about comparing him to a man who assaulted a woman, dumped her unconscious body on a different floor to try and cover his tracks, and then deny any wrongdoing.

Like I said, I referred to Mike Love to illustrate the attitude towards Scott Bennett being far more compassionate that towards Mike, which seems funny to me...and now you want to try and throw some tabloid dirt to make him part of the Gary Glitter club. stay classy!

testing his blood alcohol level would have absolutely no impact on the judgement of the case, none whatsoever.

Again, I'm not sure if you're missing the point because you don't see it, or because you don't want to see it. In either case, there is no excuse or defense for what he did. None.




0
Lee Marshall

Registered:
Posts: 2,378
Reply with quote  #35 
Agreed.  There is NO excuse.  Especially when one is in control of their faculties..  Then there's booze...and nature... ... ...and perhaps some of that old time 'way things USED to be' kind of thinking...instilled from a darker era.  Those old confederate statues come down OH-SO slowly don't they?

No one is saying that a crime wasn't committed.  No one is saying that the man wasn't wrong in doing what he did.  No one is saying that he was operating with an engraved invitation.  There are some clouds here though.  AND...it takes a pretty large set of cajones to sit in judegement on a guy who, according the the judicial system, has now served his time.

So preach elsewhere.
0
nickramone

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #36 
Lee, I think you've just summed up what my problem is.

"Agreed.  There is NO excuse.  Especially when one is in control of their faculties..  Then there's booze...and nature... ... ...and perhaps some of that old time 'way things USED to be' kind of thinking...instilled from a darker era.  Those old confederate statues come down OH-SO slowly don't they?"

There is no excuse. period. nothing to do with 'being in charge of faculties', nothing to do with booze or any outside factor. no 'especially', no 'apart from', no 'but then'. 


There is no excuse.

I don't care if you're drunk, I don't care if you're high, I don't care if you co-wrote Dark Side of The Moon.

There is no excuse.

So sure, tell me to 'preach elsewhere', but the attitude that I have a problem with here is a prime example of the huge problem of Rape culture our world is dealing with at the moment.
0
kds

Registered:
Posts: 2,996
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickramone


 

There is no excuse.

I don't care if you're drunk, I don't care if you're high, I don't care if you co-wrote Dark Side of The Moon.

There is no excuse.


Couldn't agree more.  I think it's a bit ridiculous that he only served just over a year for such an act.  


0
Ang Jones

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,042
Reply with quote  #38 
I've deleted some of my posts on this simply because it is unhelpful to all involved to continue to go over it. Perhaps some of the others who are supposedly so sympathetic to the victim should do likewise.

I find the ridiculous attempt to criticise those who were prepared to be forgiving of Scott by dragging Love into the conversation pathetic.
 
Nick Ramone wrote "It would appear that you're trying to back up Bennett's behavior by pointing out Mike Love (and maybe other members of the Beach Boys) were involved with underage girls in their touring days, and saying it's an 'easy line to cross'."

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. The Beach Boy mentioned by the journalist in question was MIKE LOVE - no-one else. What she claimed he had done was limited to inviting her, whilst knowing she was 15, to join the tour bus. She didn't and nothing happened to her. If what she claimed was true it was inappropriate behaviour on his part though. 

Keep comments about Mike to threads about him.

As I've already written, Scott's punishment wasn't limited to the sentence. It has possibly destroyed his career and left him on an offenders' register. 
 




0
nickramone

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ang Jones

I find the ridiculous attempt to criticise those who were prepared to be forgiving of Scott by dragging Love into the conversation pathetic.



for the third time, and I'm not sure how else to explain this to you...

My comment pertaining to Mr. Love was not 'dragging him into the conversation', it was merely to point out, in context, the attitude that I was arguing against.

However, seeing that the mere mention of his name seems to have put a real bee in your bonnet there, I think you've proved my point for me.

You raise again, another heartbreaking point about how Scott Bennett's life has been ruined. My heart continues to bleed for him.

0
Liz

Registered:
Posts: 73
Reply with quote  #40 
Sorry for posting but Ang had read me some of what was being said and I wanted to say somethings which she didn't.

I wasn't at the trial or in the jury room when the decisions were being made and so don't know why those decisions were made or what evidence was given.  I have heard various things.  From this point of ignorance (the same position most of you are in) I can't know whether Scott was proven guilty because of the technicality that a woman is not considered competent when under the influence of alcohol so cannot give consent in these circumstances or because she didn't give consent.  We know that she didn't remember giving consent because she didn't remember anything. So I'm not making any judgements about anyone here except American law which could result in half the dating men guilty of a crime and takes responsibility of women away from them.  If we are to rely on the law being the superior authority when he was found guilty then we must also rely on them being the superior authority when they decide he has served his sentence. 

It is a very sad tale which doesn't serve anyone by re-hashing. 
0
Liz

Registered:
Posts: 73
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickramone


for the third time, and I'm not sure how else to explain this to you...

My comment pertaining to Mr. Love was not 'dragging him into the conversation', it was merely to point out, in context, the attitude that I was arguing against.

However, seeing that the mere mention of his name seems to have put a real bee in your bonnet there, I think you've proved my point for me.

You raise again, another heartbreaking point about how Scott Bennett's life has been ruined. My heart continues to bleed for him.



This post wasn't about Mike Love it was about Scott Bennett.  It seems to me that you were spoiling for a fight and posted something you thought would provide one - which is, of course, just lovely of you. What point have you proved?  Only that 1) you'd defend Mike Love against anything and 2) Ang finds you really irritating (I'm in agreement with the latter).

0
nickramone

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz
Sorry for posting but Ang had read me some of what was being said and I wanted to say somethings which she didn't.

I wasn't at the trial or in the jury room when the decisions were being made and so don't know why those decisions were made or what evidence was given.  I have heard various things.  From this point of ignorance (the same position most of you are in) I can't know whether Scott was proven guilty because of the technicality that a woman is not considered competent when under the influence of alcohol so cannot give consent in these circumstances or because she didn't give consent.  We know that she didn't remember giving consent because she didn't remember anything. So I'm not making any judgements about anyone here except American law which could result in half the dating men guilty of a crime and takes responsibility of women away from them.  If we are to rely on the law being the superior authority when he was found guilty then we must also rely on them being the superior authority when they decide he has served his sentence. 

It is a very sad tale which doesn't serve anyone by re-hashing. 


Details of his trial and sentencing are readily available. The CCTV footage is also available....and it's very VERY uncomfortable viewing, which leaves you in no doubt what his intentions were.

but yes Liz, you raise and excellent point - if the US Judicial System say he's done his time, then he's done his time. However, this does not mean it's ok to make any excuses for what he did, or make public well-wishes without thinking someone will take offense to it. If he's everyone's best buddy, why don't they just send him a facebook message?


0
Ang Jones

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,042
Reply with quote  #43 
My last post on this subject.

1  A strong argument can stick to the subject under discussion.

2  I'm not playing any violins here. Just pointing out that the punishment wasn't as slight as some are claiming.

3  I didn't ask Liz nor have I asked anyone else to stand up for me. Stone cold sober and perfectly capable of standing up for myself.
0
nickramone

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz


This post wasn't about Mike Love it was about Scott Bennett.  It seems to me that you were spoiling for a fight and posted something you thought would provide one - which is, of course, just lovely of you. What point have you proved?  Only that 1) you'd defend Mike Love against anything and 2) Ang finds you really irritating (I'm in agreement with the latter).



and no, it was (again), merely to point out that people will defend and send public warm-wishes to a convicted rapist, and at the same time be less than compassionate to a person who (annoyingly) likes to besmirch his band's legacy and destroy his cousin's hard work.

I was pointing out the lack of perspective some people seem to have. I'm not defending Mike Love, and if someone on the internet finds me 'irritating' then that's not really my problem, but it's incredibly adult of them to ask you to stand up for them!

Enjoy your day, ladies - Congratulations on (unsuccessfully) trying to defend the actions of a rapist.


0
Liz

Registered:
Posts: 73
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickramone


and no, it was (again), merely to point out that people will defend and send public warm-wishes to a convicted rapist, and at the same time be less than compassionate to a person who (annoyingly) likes to besmirch his band's legacy and destroy his cousin's hard work.

I was pointing out the lack of perspective some people seem to have. I'm not defending Mike Love, and if someone on the internet finds me 'irritating' then that's not really my problem, but it's incredibly adult of them to ask you to stand up for them!

Enjoy your day, ladies - Congratulations on (unsuccessfully) trying to defend the actions of a rapist.




I wouldn't bother to say it again - just stop digging.

I don't need to stand up for Ang - she's more than capable of doing so for herself.

So I shall never respond you to again and to ensure I don't I won't read anything further that you write (unless you change your name again) but you were inciting an argument and that was your sole reason for your post.  If you cared a jot for this woman you wouldn't be going on about this at all.  You being irritating is clearly my problem but one which can be solved easily enough.

I'm not, nor have I ever defended the actions of a rapist nor of a person trying to commit what would be a crime in the States.  Perhaps you'd like to actually read my response but then that might get in the way of a good argument.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.