Not siding with the victim in a rape case for no reason makes you a piece of garbage. If you don't have any evidence she's lying in THIS case then shut the fuck up about that.

Thiiiiis.

So mob rule it is then.

Totally ignored the actual responses.

Well... I read somewhere she does have some injuries around her arms, which is consistent with being forcibly restrained, and would seem to give credence to the victim's account.

no, this isn't quantum mechanics - they're not in a fucking superposition until a verdict collapses their wavefunction; they're either guilty or innocent, and from what information is available, most people come to the conclusion that they are probably guilty

Exactly. Overall, you do less harm in the case of siding by assuming "well it probably happened", because history has shown that that is far more likely than "she/they made it up". The "false rape cases" thing is kinda analogous of the "welfare cheats" strawman, IE a fantasy bought to us by the right wing- something that very rarely happens IRL but which is often bought out with the hope of depriving vulnerable people of rights. It's an idea we need to get rid of.

Finally, if you're gonna fake a rape case to get some money or whatever than are you really going to go for a semi obscure polish death metal band? Cmon.

My $0.02 on the matter: I'm not going to call Decapitated a bunch of rapists yet, but it seems real bad. See what comes out of it, I guess. I'm hoping that Decap didn't do it, but yeah it looks bad.

The great thing about internet lynch mobs is that we have absolutely no legal power and if it turns out we're wrong, we all look like idiots and the band gets to have a triumphant comeback, and if we were right, we effectively attacked a career that was about to be destroyed anyway. It's a rather bittersweet victory to shout "HA! I told you she was a lying whore!" Certainly wouldn't make me feel very good.

In the last thread, I brought up the Patrick Kane case from a few years ago that turned out to all be horseshit, so yeah I feel like I always felt like at least a few of the members were guilty of something, but I was definitely letting healthy skepticism go way overboard into "I'm not saying the victim is lying, but look at all these examples of victims lying!" That was retarded, and I've come around to MC/caspian/Emp's views they're sharing here (certainly helps that I talk to all three of them outside of MA as well), because really nobody is straight up calling for them to be locked up and the key thrown away, due process be damned. It's a dumb strawman that nobody is really saying anyway.

It's a bad situation all around, but the whole "I'm gonna 'stay out of it' but defend them at every turn and never defend the victim and also look I'm just sayin' the victim lies a tiny percentage of the time so it's better to keep that in mind than the overwhelming majority that shows the exact opposite, and I'll say that's based on cautious logic when cautious logic would actually cause me to think the other way so really I'm just talking nonsense" thing is much worse than the other way around.

Really? The album has been made ages ago, do you think listening to it will turn you into a rapist? Just kidding, not having a go at you, to each his own, of course, but personally it would make no difference to me. Gary Glitter's (or, perhaps more debatable, Michael "Jesus juice" Jackson's, etc) early tunes still are catchy, even though he was jailed for molesting children later in life. A person's work and his/her private life can be of very different quality.

As for Decaptiated, I'd hope that it would be unlikely that 4 chaps get together and gang rape a woman but who knows, these days anything's possible. Let's hope that whatever happened there will be resolved in court.

Why would anybody have to side with anyone? Seems like an ignorant thing to do unless you know all the details.

Being foreign nationals complicates things in this case. The Polish Embassy is involved as is the Department of Homeland Security. They won't let them bond out due to them being a flight risk and leaving the country (not saying they would do this, but it's typical court jargon). I've followed this since it broke and originally they were only charged with kidnapping and that's how they were arrested and then later extradited to Washington. They were just formally charged with rape to varying degrees depending on the band member's involvement according to the investigation. Unfortunately, these guys are stuck until the case is adjudicated. It's a tough situation for everyone involved.

Everything seems to point at them being guilty so far. Read MCF's amazingly eloquent and well thought out posts for a more detailed response, as there's really nothing I can say that he hasn't already addressed.

The thing is that, due to inherently sexist power structures in Western society, rape victims tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to seeking justice. This is the way things are, sadly.

Only people who ignore social context, power dynamics, etc would think there's an equal 50/50 chance that a woman would lie or not about being raped. If there's evidence of the victim making it up later, I'll admit I was wrong. But believing victims of rape and sexual assault is important because it will make a more welcoming environment for people to come forward, and make society better that way.

In cases where there is no publicly available evidence pre-trial (as opposed to say a murder, where there's a body; or some sort of public crime where the media has amateur footage; or a person like say Trump, who seems to publicly and witlessly incriminate himself with every 3rd sentence fragment uttered) I generally come down on the side of "wait until evidence is presented at trial." Even in crimes where there's a body it isn't necessarily clear a crime was committed, and everyone's incessant desire to jump to conclusions about everything can have consequences beyond those immediately affected. (See also: Ferguson riots).

That perfunctory being said...I'm just going to repeat what I said in the last thread: when prosecutors bring charges in a sexual assault case, it's because they are usually convinced they have a nearly bullet-proof case. In other cases prosecutors tend to over-charge beyond what they think they could convince a jury in the (nearly certain) hope that the accused will plead to a lesser charge, but that's much less common with sexual assault cases. Sexual assault cases are some of the hardest to prosecute for a number of reasons---unlike a murder, you have a living victim who is dealing with emotional trauma and might not be able to withstand cross-examination; the circumstances often involve drugs or alcohol, which tend to make witness recollections blurry; most cases involve people who know each other rather than jump-out-of-the-bushes attackers, which means the accused successfully passes for a normal person most of the time (and won't seem creepy to jurors); a litany of other reasons---so prosecutors often won't press charges even if they themselves believe the victim.

In other words, the fact that the members of Decapitated were even charged to begin with speaks volumes about how strong a case the prosecutors think they have, and how sure they are of the band's guilt.

New band statement:

Have they had there day in court? Have they had a a jury of there peers hear the case? The answer to both is no. So until they are in front of a jury they are not guilty of anything. That's oh it works.

Literally no one is saying that they're guilty in the eyes of the law - because they're not. What people are saying is that based on what we know about the case, as well as how sexual assault cases go and all the shit an accuser has to deal with, it's more logically and ethically sound for people on the outside (i.e: us) to be in favour of the accuser.

I was at the used cd store today and I notice a sign over the metal section that read "this establishment will no longer accept or sell anything by the band decapitated." I asked one of the employees there about this and he said "the owner won't support any bands who rapes anyone." I was thinking since when did we live in a society that your guilty until proven innocent?

They have the opportunity to make a statement, but the one thing they want to point out - specifically - is that this one officer said he didn't have probable cause to charge them before they were charged?

If that's going to be the crux of their defense, good luck.

Well, then they're going to drop the real bombshell: "it took a long time for them to charge us!"

I understand people's disgust at the "victim blaming" shit but I can't help but be skeptical here...it just doesn't make sense that the guys in Decapitated, an experienced and professional band, could be so fucking stupid as to have actually done this while on tour in a foreign country. Beyond the (hopefully) obvious level of having a working conscience & respect for women as human beings, if they actually are rapists, how the hell did they think this would play out...did they think they'd get away with it?!?!? These guys aren't Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein with a wall of money to hide behind for decades....if guilty they must be the dumbest criminals in the world! I just find it hard to believe that they wouldn't be just a smidge more mature and level-headed at their age & experience in the scene. Obviously I'm not saying it's impossible they did it or that they are absolutely innocent - I'm just at a loss for words at the whole situation.

If most criminals weren't stupid 90% of prisons would be empty.

^ The for-profit private prison problem here in the U.S. begs to differ, but that’s an entirely different conversation altogether.

Further developments...

"As previously reported, Decapitated members Wacław “Vogg” Kiełtyka (guitars) and Michał Łysejko (drums) made their first appearance in a Spokane, WA court yesterday. The Spokesman-Review now reports that during that appearance, Spokane Superior Court Judge Annette Plese set bail for each musician at $100,000, ordered them to surrender their passports to their attorneys, forbade any further communication for members of the band:

“Kieltyka’s attorney, Stephen Graham, said that restriction would be deemed inhumane by international law.

“‘If they are kept apart they, in essence, will be held in solitary confinement,’ Graham said. ‘Because they don’t speak English very well.'”
Both men, along with their bandmates Rafał “Rasta” Piotrowski (vocals) and Hubert Więcek (bass), have been formally charged with first-degree kidnapping and second- (Kiełtyka and Piotrowski) or third-degree rape (Łysejko and Więcek). In a statement released yesterday, all four members of the band maintained their innocence. Łysejko and Więcek will appear in court on Thursday, October 19."

Also consistent of liking it rough. Who knows. Speculation, even though time has gone by, is still pointless up to now.

^ Why the hell would you even say that?

Wow, nice.

Does anyone with legal knowledge know why she's forbidding communication between the members? Is it because they've given conflicting accounts and she doesn't want them to get together in a room and straighten out their story? That's all I can think of.

Also, I feel like we need to remember that just because they may be found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it. I'm not trying to say, "they're guilty even if the courts don't convict them!" but it seems the pendulum is swinging between "they did it" or "she's a liar", when there's also the possibility that there won't be enough evidence to convict, come trial.

This Is my stance as well. A band long going from Poland just all the sudden does this and it isn't like they all had criminal records right?

Then again the Vegas Shooter didn't have any prior history so I don't know what to think at this point.

In the general cases of rape at large, I would agree. However, we're drawing from a sample of highly publicized cases, with large media coverage, under conditions that are easily sensationalized (ie the fact that they're a metal band... also this is not limited to metal, a similar case involving a punk band or rapper would also be ripe for sensationalism). So I don't think you're a rape apologist asshole adversely affecting the battle against rape at large if you decide to wait out the Decapitated case. In fact I think it's a perfectly reasonable stance to take here.

Though I do agree that siding with the band, dismissing the victim without evidence or diverting your attention to how this affects the metal community is totally dumb.

Even if they are cleared of the charges, it will still impact their background check on any upcoming tours in the future. We might not see anymore decapitated tours in the u.s.

Yes, everyone who does things differently to you is a piece of garbage or ignores social context, power dynamics, etc, or, wait, maybe some people simply don't want to jump to conclusions quite so quickly.

Whole bands don't generally rape fans as they're usually not made up of rapists only, women generally don't lie about rape, both scenarios are not exactly common. It also could be something inbetween, some weird sex session gone wrong, I guess. The details will emerge once it goes to court.

Not wanting to judge things so quickly just sounds like 'I think this woman lied about rape' in this case to me. I agree that more details could come out. I am just saying it's usually good to believe rape and sexual assault victims, and some people here don't seem to. I hope I'm wrong about that second part.

People saying 'oh, it seems unbelievable that this band would be made up of rapists' - well, maybe this is just the first time they've been caught doing it. And maybe they're not full on jump-out-of-bushes at you rapists wielding knives; maybe they are just douchebags who don't believe in consent and like to be around really drunk girls. It happens. "Weird sex session gone wrong" usually means there was a nonconsensual thing happening so it merits legal action anyway, and so fuck the band in that case too.

And no, people thinking differently from me is fine, but doubting rape victims for no reason other than that you like a metal band accused of it makes you highly suspicious to say the least.

If we were in a position where we might personally interact with an alleged victim, it might make sense to be disposed to take their side even in the absence of anything like conclusive evidence (whatever that would be in a case like this). But if we don't know the people involved and will never personally interact with them, I don't see the slightest problem with wanting to suspend judgment. Well, that is, as long as one would suspend judgment in an evidentially similar case that didn't involve rape allegations. (If someone sides with a victim in the case of a woman allegedly cheating on a man, but does not do so in a case like this, that is a bad sign. But if they consistently suspend judgment independent of the race, gender, etc. of the people involved, then there's no problem I can see. Suspension of judgment is good practice. Doing so ad hoc because one likes the accused or dislikes the accuser is bad.)

I think it's super plausible that they are guilty. It does not sound at all far-fetched to me. I don't like the band. But there's no way I have nearly enough evidence to outright believe they are guilty. Again, if I were a confidant of the accuser, that might justify taking their side. But by being so distant from the people involved, we have the luxury of not being forced to make up our minds on the basis of scanty evidence. However, if you're really conscientiously suspending judgment for this particular reason, you also probably shouldn't be out there getting involved in the issue. If you want to participate in a substantial way, you entangle yourself in many ethical complications.

And I'm also not at all saying that we should just wait until the court renders a verdict. There's nothing magical about a court, as others have observed: Roughly speaking, they are guilty or not already, and the court just represents a legal system's best guess given the evidence. They will hopefully end up more informed than we are now, but they can go wrong. Suspension of judgment is a great policy whenever one has the luxury of not being forced to make practical decisions on the basis of one's judgment. We don't have to decide what to do with them, so we don't have to come to a definitive judgment.

I bet she's telling the truth. But it's typically absurd to fully trust any one person on matters of any consequence.

I honestly don't disagree, and the sad thing is that it's sooner than later.

If they are found guilty, then hopefully the media sources who shoved the story down people's throats and blamed it on metal will then blame a story involving gang rape or multiple homicide on the music of boy bands or country music. Either that, or they'll compensate by publicizing this story by publishing articles about other extreme metal and death metal bands that show the great side of them, showing their human side, and the great people that are also in the metal community. But I doubt they will, given how degrading and dehumanizing the media almost always is towards the metal scene.

But we'll wait and see how the verdict turns out. Hopefully, they're not guilty, but it seems as if everyone wants them to be.

The underground metal scene won't die from the bad PR unless there's a string of metal gang rapes and people stop going to shows. Doesn't seem like a whole lot to talk about as far as how this affects "the scene". The same lessons on vigilance regarding rapist behavior we're all taught in other spheres are as applicable in metal as anywhere else, so there isn't really a metal specific solution to these kinds of problems.

As someone involved in the kink scene, and specifically the rougher side of it, I'll let you in on a little secret. If a woman (or man) likes it rough, and likes using restraints (or being restrained), they don't generally hit up the local cop shop and accuse four people of kidnapping and rape. In fact, it's highly unlikely. Especially when it's an obscure (in the spheres of the music scene in general) death metal band from Poland, even if it was for a little time in the spotlight. They haven't released her name, and while this may get a bunch of local news coverage, it'll be for a very short period of time and will never reach farther than that. More than that, these dudes don't have any goddamn money, so unless the victim in question is a raving lunatic of the highest order, what could possibly be the reasoning behind a false accusation of this magnitude? Especially when, like Earthcubed said, these cases are notoriously hard to prove, and even harder to go through as a victim.

The wonderful thing about a thread like this is that educated speculation is totally okay. There are members of other bands they've toured with who've stated that in all likelihood, this did happen based on their own experiences with the band. If it turns out to be untrue (unlikely), then we can all feel like a bunch of morons for a little while and go back to enjoying their music (if you enjoyed their music in the first place.) If not, well, they got what they deserved and we can all feel vindicated for a little while before we all turn our attention elsewhere.

I thought we'd all agreed she's trying to extort the band for money.

If so, she's chosen her targets well and can expect a massive payday. Death metal musicians are just rolling in it.

It's a very lucrative genre, I agree. I mean, I've always dreamed of driving across North America with 5 other guys in a cramped rental van and very little access to clean water to shower with.

As far as this being damaging to the genre as a whole, remember that Lost Prophets guy? The horrors of what he did didn't harm whatever music scene that they belonged to, as far as I know.