California assemblyman accused of forcing lobbyist into bathroom and masturbating

[gamewell45]

Sacramento, California lobbyist Pamela Lopez has made an allegation that State Assemblyman Matt Dabahneh (D) went into an elevator with her and publicly masturbated in front of her and encouraged her to touch him. The alleged incident occurred in 2016 according to Lopez. Dabahneh denies the allegation.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-matt-dababneh-harassment-20171204-story,amp.html

If this is true, then its high time for the Assemblyman to resign his position.

[Common]

Never ends, I stopped posting these because theres 5 a day between celebrities and state local and fed politicians.

[donttread]

Sacramento, California lobbyist Pamela Lopez has made an allegation that State Assemblyman Matt Dabahneh (D) went into an elevator with her and publicly masturbated in front of her and encouraged her to touch him. The alleged incident occurred in 2016 according to Lopez. Dabahneh denies the allegation.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-matt-dababneh-harassment-20171204-story,amp.html

If this is true, then its high time for the Assemblyman to resign his position.

Wow that must be a long elevator ride? It could be worse though. It could have happened to a real person instead of just a lobbyist.

[Green Arrow]

He needs to resign.

[donttread]

He needs to resign.


Might wanta wait for ... what's that called....: Proof?

[Green Arrow]

Might wanta wait for ... what's that called....: Proof?

Your defenses of accused molesters and rapists are well-known at this point, donttread. I’m not interested in what you’re selling.

[Abby08]

Your defenses of accused molesters and rapists are well-known at this point, donttread. I’m not interested in what you’re selling.

You see, that's the thing.....these people, save for a couple who have admitted it.... have just been, ACCUSED.....it's right that people should defend them, least they be, accused and convicted themselves, without due process.

[Abby08]

How would you, those who are calling for resignations, feel if you were accused of doing something wrong and, right away, you were already considered to be guilty? Without evidence, without proof, just one person's word and, they're ready to send you to prison?

[Green Arrow]

You see, that's the thing.....these people, save for a couple who have admitted it.... have just been, ACCUSED.....it's right that people should defend them, least they be, accused and convicted themselves, without due process.

There’s a massive difference between being tried in the court of public opinion and being tried in an actual court of law. In a court of law you are absolutely innocent until proven guilty and I’ll defend that. But in the court of public opinion you have no presumption of innocence. I 100% believe the victims until proven otherwise.

[Green Arrow]

How would you, those who are calling for resignations, feel if you were accused of doing something wrong and, right away, you were already considered to be guilty? Without evidence, without proof, just one person's word and, they're ready to send you to prison?

Look at it from the reverse. What if you WERE sexually abused, but because your abuser was in a position of power nothing was ever done, and now everybody automatically takes your abuser’s side when you try to seek justice?

[donttread]

Your defenses of accused molesters and rapists are well-known at this point, donttread. I’m not interested in what you’re selling.

Defenses? No. Just honoring a little thing called "resonable doubt" and not trying people in the press . You should look at the media justice you're selling.
And where did molesters get on the list. I mean yes there again an accusation does not mean guilt but have we discussed true molesting accusations lately?

[jimmyz]

There’s a massive difference between being tried in the court of public opinion and being tried in an actual court of law. In a court of law you are absolutely innocent until proven guilty and I’ll defend that. But in the court of public opinion you have no presumption of innocence. I 100% believe the victims until proven otherwise.
Even if the allegations were spurious and politically motivated and unproven in the court of law?

[donttread]

There’s a massive difference between being tried in the court of public opinion and being tried in an actual court of law. In a court of law you are absolutely innocent until proven guilty and I’ll defend that. But in the court of public opinion you have no presumption of innocence. I 100% believe the victims until proven otherwise.


And if everybody does that nobody gets a fair trial because juries are made up of people. Besides since we know that less than 100% of accusations of crime are true it would be foolish to blindly believe every 30 year old accusation

[MisterVeritis]

There’s a massive difference between being tried in the court of public opinion and being tried in an actual court of law. In a court of law you are absolutely innocent until proven guilty and I’ll defend that. But in the court of public opinion you have no presumption of innocence. I 100% believe the victims until proven otherwise.
You molested me when I was a child. I accuse you. Should you lose your job? I am a victim so I must be believed. The seriousness of my allegation is far more important than your right to defend yourself. You have no presumption of innocence. Quit your job tomorrow.

[Green Arrow]

You molested me when I was a child. I accuse you. Should you lose your job? I am a victim so I must be believed. The seriousness of my allegation is far more important than your right to defend yourself. You have no presumption of innocence. Quit your job tomorrow.

I’m 26. Do you also accuse me of owning a time machine? :grin20:

[Green Arrow]

Even if the allegations were spurious and politically motivated and unproven in the court of law?

Until proven false, I side with the victims.

[Tahuyaman]

Might wanta wait for ... what's that called....: Proof?

Why is it that an accusation of this nature with nothing but someone's word is enough to be considered guilty? I've already heard one feminist say that if innocent men are accused and considered guilty, that's acceptable.

[Tahuyaman]

Until proven false, I side with the victims.. You mean "alleged" victim, right? Why is one guilty until proven innocent in these cases?

[Tahuyaman]

There’s a massive difference between being tried in the court of public opinion and being tried in an actual court of law. In a court of law you are absolutely innocent until proven guilty and I’ll defend that. But in the court of public opinion you have no presumption of innocence. I 100% believe the victims until proven otherwise.

You are absolutely correct when you say one doesn't need to be innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. However, you are taking it a step further when you say he must resign because you find him guilty in the court of public opinion.

[Green Arrow]

. You mean "alleged" victim, right? Why is one guilty until proven innocent in these cases?
Because it isn’t a court of law.

[jimmyz]

Until proven false, I side with the victims.

You cannot prove a negative. You should know this.

[jimmyz]

Until proven false, I side with the victims.

You would make a great persecutor in the French revolution... until they came for your head.

[Tahuyaman]

Because it isn’t a court of law. Granted, but why do you automatically believe the alleged victim?

[Green Arrow]

Granted, but why do you automatically believe the alleged victim?

Because if they are truly a victim, they are the most needy party.

[Tahuyaman]

Because if they are truly a victim, they are the most needy party.
Answer the question. Why do you automatically believe them?

[Tahuyaman]

I guess some people believe that no one ever makes false accusations in these cases.

[Green Arrow]

I guess some people believe that no one ever makes false accusations in these cases.

Who believes that? Name some names.

[Green Arrow]

Answer the question. Why do you automatically believe them?

I did answer the question. I automatically believe them because if they are telling the truth, they are the most injured party.

[MisterVeritis]

I’m 26. Do you also accuse me of owning a time machine? :grin20:
So you should be able to defend yourself against my allegation? Hmmm. I suppose you see no problem with your hypocrisy.

[Tahuyaman]

Who believes that? Name some names.
You

[Tahuyaman]

I did answer the question. I automatically believe them because if they are telling the truth, they are the most injured party.


You automatically belueve them because they made the accusation. Ok

[Green Arrow]

You

Really? Where did I say there are no false accusations?

[Green Arrow]

So you should be able to defend yourself against my allegation? Hmmm. I suppose you see no problem with your hypocrisy.

I see no hypocrisy. I never suggested someone shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves.

[Green Arrow]

You automatically belueve them because they made the accusation. Ok

Why are you falsely portraying my post? I very clearly said that victims, if they are telling the truth, are the most injured party in that scenario and that is why I take their side.

[Tahuyaman]

Really? Where did I say there are no false charges ....
You said you always side with the accuser in these cases? Can you ever take a firm stand on anything? Do you always need to waffle?

[Green Arrow]

You said you always side with the accuser in these cases? Can you ever take a firm stand on anything? Do you always need to waffle?

I am taking a firm stand. That doesn’t mean I have to allow you to consistently twist and misrepresent my words.

[Tahuyaman]

I am taking a firm stand. That doesn’t mean I have to allow you to consistently twist and misrepresent my words.

You said the accused is always guilty until proved innocent. So, when it's she said she said, the accused is always guilty in your mind.

[Green Arrow]

You said the accused is always guilty until proved innocent. So, when it's she said she said, the accused is always guilty in your mind.

In my eyes, yes. Once (if) proved innocent, the accusation is rendered false. I will then defend the accused.

[Tahuyaman]

So, I was right. If it's just the word of the accuser with nothing else to support it. The accused is guilty.

Now that we got that settled, do you approve of accusers being kept anonymous?

[Green Arrow]

So, I was right. If it's just the word of the accuser with nothing else to support it. The accused is guilty.

Now that we got that settled, do you approve of accusers being kept anonymous?

As long as it doesn’t hamper any investigations, yes.

[Tahuyaman]

As long as it doesn’t hamper any investigations, yes.What about the right of the accused to face his accuser?

[Green Arrow]

What about the right of the accused to face his accuser?

That applies to a court of law. At that point the accuser would have to come out of anonymity because otherwise the investigation would be hampered.

[Tahuyaman]

Wow.

[gamewell45]

That applies to a court of law. At that point the accuser would have to come out of anonymity because otherwise the investigation would be hampered.

Agreed; that makes good sense.

[Tahuyaman]

Agreed; that makes good sense.
It never makes sense to keep an accuser anonymous.

[gamewell45]

It never makes sense to keep an accuser anonymous.

I believe he said the accuser would have to come out otherwise it would hamper the investigation; that's what I'm agreeing with.

[Tahuyaman]

I believe he said the accuser would have to come out otherwise it would hamper the investigation; that's what I'm agreeing with.


If an accuser is ever anonymous, the investigation is compromised from the start.