Anyone who has spent any time with male spouse abusers knows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Read up on the profile of behaviours that predicts spousal abuse.

There is no clear evidence that "no crime was committed". And your claim of mental delusion applies at least as strongly to these thugs.

You must be an atty or a pr rep for these thugs. Ted Bundy was also extremely articulate, impressively intelligent and very charming. And a thug. The only accurate description you give of the thug on TV was that it was a performance. Heavily coached, heavily prepped for and pure spin.

Young men are not "boys". And thugs with histories of violent and abusive behaviour towards women are not "nice".

Ah yup. Absolutely at a complete loss when it comes to posets, generating functions and multi-dimensional linear equations. Yup.

Hey folks I think we have one of the atty's for these thugs on the line here.

After all, what we have seen by pfish is a classic example of

If you have the Facts, Pound the Facts
If you have the Law, Pound the Law
If you don't have either, Pound the Table

First we got the selective use of facts primarily focussed on the accusor, but completely ignoring the facts about the thugishness of the accused

Then we got the invocation of THE LAW in the form of the highly political statement from the AG

and now we have had a campaign of "nice boys" and name calling against any who disagree.

Clever clever clever. Nifong must have felt like he ran into a buzzsaw when he got surprised by the atty's for these thugs

Men with assault convictions and a track record of verbal abuse towards women aren't necessarily rapists, but they have close alignment with the personalities of many rapists.

the thuggish jocks have found themselves in the situation had Mike Nifong not been a liberal democrat running for election in a black community.

An understandably overlooked circumstance doncha' think?

They may not be "innocent," but we know one thing: they're Not Guilty.

Not only is there a wealth of evidence that no crime was committed in the first place, that's all without even taking into account that the whole farce was the delusional rambling of a mentally-unstable prostitute trying to avoid a night in the drunk tank, and who has a drug problem in addition to her criminal history, mental health history, and history of making false allegations of rape.

Regarding the so-called "nuts and sluts" defense (just in case that's where you wanted to go...)? The thing is, sometimes the "slut" really IS a "nut" (& vice-versa).

That you would raise the completely imaginary and ridiculous, not to mention wholly unsubstantiated, specter of male battery only demonstrates how completely your worldview is shaken now that your victimology metanarrative has collapsed.

between your selective spinning of so-called "facts" and actual evidence.

That disqualifies your opinion from serious examination by serious people.

that you've already demonstrated that either you can't tell the difference between an AG and a DA, or you can't figure out how to shut up even when you have no idea what you've bloviating about.

They clearly are not legally guilty. But your point runs in reverse too -- just because they're not guilty (of this) doesn't mean they're innocent, or "nice". That's as far as I'm interested in carrying the argument; Degsme seems to think that the crime that was alleged here may really have been committed, I find that fairly dubious.

In any case, I think it's pretty darn obvious that none of these guys was "nice".

Do you see me disagreeing? My point is simply that in the rush to condemn Nifong, people are going considerably too far on the side of endorsing and praising the falsely-accused. They may not be criminals, but they're still jerks.

The point of the article, if you bothered to read it, was precisely that Nifong's behavior wasn't terribly out of the ordinary. So sorry, that circumstance has nothing to do with it. And furthermore, wouldn't excuse the behavior (which was not criminal, but still stupid).

I never said thuggish jocks should go to jail. But neither should they be campus heroes, whose bad habits are excused under the theory that "boys will be boys".

auros:

Do you see me disagreeing? My point is simply that in the rush to condemn Nifong, people are going considerably too far on the side of endorsing and praising the falsely-accused. They may not be criminals, but they're still jerks.

jerks they may be, but social norms are often reflected in the law. some districts outlaw nude dancing, some alchohol, some legalize smoking pot in public. If you have a stripper at your party in scottsdale, or get drunk in public in some parts of utah, you are not just a jerk, you are a felon, and no one feels sorry for you.

here's the point. Nifong is an agent of the State. It's his job to enforce the law, not any offense to his personal sensibilities.Praise them? No.

but if we start prosecuting jerks, we are going to need a jail cell for just about EVERYONE, eventually.

Frankly, I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone would assign "American Psycho" in any school, anywhere, but especially at a school like Duke. Unless it's a course on mediocre gimmick fiction of the late 20th century.