How about remaining impartial until we have seen a bit more evidence? Why automatically assume that someone is telling the truth just because they are claiming rape? By the same token, we can't assume she is lying just because we are all metal heads and fans of the band.

You don't know the accuser. She might be an attention seeker or a pathological liar. She might be telling the truth. No reason to side with either party as far as I can see.

This is a metal forum, not a jury. People are allowed to speculate on the case with what is currently known.

There have already been plenty of reasons given as to why the chances of the girl lying about the whole thing are extremely unlikely.

Yep. There have been reasons given why she might not be telling the truth. I do not know which is correct. Nor does anyone else on this forum.

That's not really the point I'm making though. He said that you are "garbage" if you don't automatically assume the victim is telling the truth. Wanting to see a bit more detail before deciding either way does not make you a complete shithouse of a person.

Doubting rape victims and wanting to know more details before believing them only adds to the toxic rape culture. It leads victims to stay silent out of a fear they'll just be picked apart, scrutinized, etc ("what were you wearing?" and the likes) and the perpetrators validated because they're looked at as good guys. So yeah I stand by that statement.

The toxic rape culture would also be made worse by a moralistic demand that we not doubt the alleged victims. It is a position that would be very easily exploited. I think relatively few people lie about rape, but if there were a presumption of belief, I suspect more would lie. People are bad: For example, they rape. If people are bad enough to rape, they are bad enough to lie about rape, especially when the risk of being found out is negated by a presumption of believability.

We can be scrupulous without picking people apart in irrelevant ways. The fact that people think scrupulousness means "finding out whether she's a slut" is no argument against scrupulousness. It is an argument against a misconception of what scrupulousness requires.

If they are not guilty, I hope that they recover from the situation and are able to continue their careers making great music. If they actually are guilty, I hope the same is done to them in prison and they rot in hell.

The latest news don´t give us much more information. The band has charged with a rape accusation which is normal because the woman is accusing them of raping her. We have no further evidence of the truth. I do hope that the justice system will make its job appropially and will find the truth and let the justice work.

I obviously hope that Decapitated members are innocent. But even on that scenario I won´t be happy because that would mean that the woman has lied and this would be terribly fustrating and annoying for all the women whe are raped every f*cking day in this planet, and of course for me.

Whatever it happens who is guilty should be severely punished. Rape is such a horrendous crime.

It isn't isn't doubting. It's called having her accuse the band of the crime and seeing what evidence there is.

...that's doubting, bud. Needing more evidence is doubting.

Yeah, they probably did this and I hope they get all they have coming to them.

None of the people saying "wait for more evidence" actually want evidence. They read things like "authorities said the woman in question had marks on her arms consistent with being restrained" and they say moronic things like "Well, maybe she just likes rough sex!!!!" Don't treat their rhetoric as anything other than what it is, a slimy attempt to undermine rape victims' accounts based on nothing other than the fact that the accusers are women.

Do they? Maybe they accept she was restrained but she could just as easily have been restrained by someone else earlier in the night or the night before. Not saying she was or wasn't but having an injury isn't proof of it being a result of an alleged incident.

Thanks for speaking for everyone wanting more evidence as we aren't the jury and don't have access to more information than the limited amount we have now.

The jury uses their depth of evidence to legally convict people of a crime. You and I would both agree that the standards of evidence need to be airtight to condemn somebody to a prison sentence. What I'm saying is that it is perfectly reasonable to use the circumstantial evidence available right now to make a non-legal, personal judgment as to the guilt of the band. I think at this point I would actually respect it more if somebody outright said "the girl is a lying skank and Decapitated are innocent", as opposed to all of these waffling, skeptic responses like: "I refuse to cast any sort of prediction about what happened until after it's all said and done because doing otherwise would, god forbid, be presumptuous! (but also I make presumptions literally every goddamn minute of my existence, just like everyone else on Earth, but coincidentally I'll espouse the wonders of skepticism only when the presumption requires me to believe a woman was raped)"

If she had accused one of them it would be more of a 'wait and see' thing for me and wouldn't affect how I hear their music so much, but the whole band stands accused. I wouldn't believe anyone who told me they consented to a drunken, sweaty post-concert four-way death metal Pollock gangbang from hell. I'd probably feel violated just smelling their body odor after a show.

There are people out there who think and act that way, I agree, hopefully these problems have gotten better over the last couple of decades though, but there also are some nutty women out there, at least if some of the stories in the media can be believed. That's why we need courts, to figure out what happened and to make a hopefully just decision.

When it comes to intercourse behind closed doors it can be very murky business. Look at a story like this (assuming that's what actually happened) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10 ... ng-tinder/
I wonder if stuff like this will become more common as youngsters more and more grow up with quite nasty porn and thus assume that this is how you treat women during sex, without asking if that's what they enjoy, and as women are perhaps more willing to report abuse.

Quoting this for both visibility and presenting facts in a thread full of emotionally-driven responses.

My, oh my have you ever grown. Amen, brother.

Let me be clear, people. If this woman was into BDSM (restraints, beating, etc.) you can bet your sweet ass that either some journalist would have gotten their hands on that information, or the cops and/or prosecuting lawyers would have been a bit more skeptical of her account, given that she'd probably have more than a few other marks (or scars) on her body and would have to explain them. It's funny that people who aren't even casually into kink (again, I'm making a pretty safe assumption) would say, "Well, maybe she's just into rough sex guys!", because anybody with any knowledge in that area would be quicker to assume she is, in fact, not into being kidnapped, restrained, and gang-banged by four dudes. That's not even a light kink, that's pretty heavy stuff, and chances are any woman into that sort of thing isn't doing it with four men (I assume) she hardly knows given the amount of negotiating that would go on before any sensible human being would get involved in that sort of thing. (Safe words, hard limits, soft limits, that sort of thing.) Just use your heads instead of trotting out moronic ideas which only serve to make you look like a douche canoe, as opposed to the wonderfully (and strangely, only in this case) skeptical mind who is only following the word of law. Which, by the way, just makes you look like a pretentious dickhead who quite clearly thought they had a serious career in legal matters ahead of them.

EDIT: I may have said "that sort of thing" more than is probably grammatical correct, oops.

Maybe she has an abusive partner who had been man handling her that evening before she left for he gig?

What on earth makes you think that they're only or even a majority of sensible human beings out there?

If you go back to my first post that quoted Empyreal's post you'll see what I was arguing.

You have proof that they raped her? Good. You don't, then you're jumping to conclusions (and we're talking about a serious crime here, not shoplifting) Fine, if that's what you enjoy. To additionally throw insults around if others don't want to jump to the same conclusions, perhaps even accusing them of bad intentions, is daft.

If she had an abusive partner, chances are much higher she'd go to the cops about her partner, not four guys from Poland. Come on, that's fucking ridiculous. Which is easier to believe (or prove), "My partner beats and rapes me", or "I was kidnapped and gangraped by four guys from a Polish death metal band"? This isn't exactly the Bible Belt where this incident occured, people aren't as frightened of metalheads as you might think.

@Warty_basaloid: I don't believe the majority of people are sensible (quite the opposite), but the majority of people aren't into that level of kink either.

Are you for fucking real? After your thoroughly shitty contributions to this thread have been intelligently dissected and shat upon your response still essentially boils down to "Ya but whatever she's still probably lying."

Unbelievable.

I'd presume they'd already know about that if it'd happened. Seems pretty farfetched to say she'd frame four people over an abusive partner. There doesn't seem to be anything to support that theory either.

Hahahaha, indeed - some people seem to want to find just any excuse not to believe that sexual assault, a very common thing really, happened.

MutantClannfear is correct - the middling, noncommittal "let's wait and see" stuff, I just don't see the point. Unless one of us is going to wherever Decapitated is and killing them ourselves, I don't think mob rule is an issue, nor that "hysterical" judgments are that big of a deal. Of course we're gonna wait and see, that is how the passing of time works. It's a very obvious statement.

Have they? All I can see is people saying you have to believe the complainant because it would be wrong not to. As I said above, she could be telling the truth, they could be telling the truth. I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. Neither were you nor anyone else on this board. Basically it's all conjecture. You seem to have made your mind up. Your choice. I'll keep an open mind and wait to what else comes out.

So yes, I am for fucking real.

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying she does have an abusive partner. I'm not saying she is framing the band to cover for her injuries. The point I am making is that there are numerous ways in which these injuries could be sustained. It doesn't mean she was restrained and raped by four blokes in a metal band. It could mean that. It might not. None of us know.

That reality is even more unlikely than her lying about this, so you should really quit while you're ahead.

This is what the band seems to say about that (sorry, if it has been posted already, I didn't check the whole thread)

The band have now issued a statement to Facebook, confirming the extradition and charges, adding: “We’d like to emphasise; the Spokane Police Department has pressed charges as procedural formality, without doing so, they would be forced to release band – this is not a conviction or any indication of guilt or innocence.”

Read more at http://www.nme.com/news/music/decapitat ... gPVJQBP.99

I'll leave it to the lawyers from here on ;-P

You made a flippant, and absolutely fucking moronic comment about her possibly having an abusive partner, implying that there's even a vaguely slim chance that she framed four completely innocent men instead of accusing this partner and the police/prosecutors bought it hook, line, and sinker, and you're not tossing any conjecture out there, eh? The point is, the chances that she's telling the truth are much, much higher than the possibility that they're telling the truth, just in case you couldn't figure that out for yourself. I'll toss you this bone since you seem completely incapable of defending your opinion outside of, "Well, I have an open mind bitches".

I can also assure you with complete certainty that I did not misunderstand you. I knew exactly where you were going.

I'll carry on as I see fit thanks all the same.

Another one who has made his mind up. Your choice.

You might as well be posting comments like "I wonder what the victim was wearing," or "Maybe she was asking for it by being alone with them on a bus." You're right about on the edge of that.

You introduced an aspect that isn't even remotely a possibility based on absolutely nothing. The odds of her being restrained (which I believe was a part of the statement/story she made public) while being gang-raped is fairly high. The odds of her coincidently being restrained by an abusive partner the night before is literally fucking 0%.

If you have some sort of proof of precedent of this from previous cases, I'd be more than happy to entertain it, but for now, you're saying a bunch of bullshit that has no basis in logic or reality.

The chances are she is telling the truth - so why are you presenting it as an absolute fact?

I didn't say she had an abusive partner. I was using that to illustrate the fact the injuries alone do not confirm their guilt as there are other ways the injuries could have been sustained. That is all. I do not know anything about the lass. Nor do you.

My only opinion at this moment in time is that I hope justice prevails. If they are guilty I hope they receive the relevant punishment. If they are innocent I hope they are acquitted. I think their reputations will be beyond repair though because of the attitudes of people such as your good self.

How many times do you need me to say "I am not saying she has an abusive partner" before it sinks in?

Dude, stop digging the absolutely gargantuan hole you've already dug yourself into. In your attempts to present yourself as not being a huuuuuge dickhead, you've just made yourself look like a bigger dickhead. You presented a completely nonsensical (I mean, truly ridiculous) scenario in an effort to show ("illustrate") how it could be completely possible that she could be lying, all the while ignoring every other intelligent response in this thread illustrating (I'll use it too) just how goddamn unlikely it is that she is lying. I mean, you couldn't even come up with an example that was even sort of more likely. You just shot straight up into the realm of pure, unadulterated fiction. People subsequently shot your theory full of gaping holes and you defended it by saying, "Man, I didn't say she had an abusive partner, I just meant to use this ridiculous, absolutely ludicrous example to illustrate one of many other equally ridiculous ways she could have sustained injuries that are pretty consistent with being restrained (by hand or by restraints) that don't involve being kidnapped and gangraped. I just have an open mind, dude."

If your only opinion is "I hope justice prevails", why the hell did you say any of that shit in the first place? Because it sort of sounds like you want to lean more in the direction of, "Bitch is probably full of shit, but I'll pretend to have an open, completely unbiased mind."

I don't believe they had much of a reputation in the first place, buddy. I'm not stating it as absolutely fact. I can't recall typing "This is absolute fact" at any point, can you? I mean, it's incredibly likely, but I never said it was fact.

People seem to have a fundamental miscommunication or misunderstanding here. As MutantClannfear has said already, us thinking they probably did this shit is not some kind of damning indictment of guilt sending them to jail forever and ever and depriving the world of their music - we don't have any powers by law. If we turn out, somehow, to be totally wrong and they are innocent, I doubt anyone would say anything except 'oh, well, good that a horrible gang rape DIDN'T happen.' Obviously in a matter this serious, being wrong about it wouldn't be a bad thing.

It's not jumping to conclusions, taking sides, etc. It isn't being hasty. It's understanding that rape and sexual assaults happen in real life and more often than not, they are real and not made up for money or attention. It's a banal and simple thing. There's usually no conspiracy to be found.

So when I said previously that you're a piece of garbage for not believing rape victims, that was not meant to be anything damning against waiting for more evidence or thinking critically, etc. Obviously we are all doing that. That's what we're doing by default as time passes. Maybe more evidence will clarify the situation.

But most likely it happened the way the victim said.

It's about basic human compassion and making a society that isn't shitty. If you respond to stories like this with 'oh, well let's just wait and see, she could have been lying,' you're perpetuating a system of oppression that crushes sex assault and rape victims of both genders and of all different walks of life. This is a relatively non-significant area of society - just a metal forum online - but the mindset of doubting victims and thinking it's going to turn out differently than the mundane and simple facts of every-day rape and assault, minimizes the issue of sexual assault and creates an atmosphere where victims aren't encouraged to come forward. I think the best course is to see if any information comes out that proves the victim lied, because if it does, it will be straightforward and not some weird conspiracy. But again, most likely she didn't and it happened the way she did. Until you have concrete evidence otherwise, believe victims.

A lot of times, having a more balanced and critical view is a good thing, but here, by taking this "sensible" position you're really not helping anyone or doing anything positive. It's just devil's advocate stuff for no other reason than intellectual jerking-off. If you take elements of this case and put them in a bottle, without taking into account the prevalence of sexual assault in society, or the ways men get away with this kind of shit, then maybe it seems cool to you to go 'well, let's look at the other side.'

You should look honestly at what you're saying and see what you're defending. If it's just some nebulous concept like 'a fair trial' or 'not judging situations quickly,' maybe rape victims deserve more consideration than those things until you have some reason to believe there was something else going on. But really, assuming they did it is not some horrible emotional reaction or getting ahead of ourselves - it's normalcy.

Annnnnd I think that's probably the nail in the coffin. Very well put, Emp.

I've found that on the internet there's a massive influx of people who just want to play "devil's advocate" for the sake of being able to say they were on the right side of an issue, or in this case "open minded" about something. Empyreal has pretty much nailed it here, but seriously if you're more invested in trying to come up with a perfect balanced position that frames a rapist and their accuser in equal light, you probably never gave a shit about the victim in the first place.

And, once again, no current poster in this thread has stated, "well, the victim is very obviously lying!" Maybe one, possibly two people have stated that, and they're not being taken seriously by anybody here. Everybody else is stating, "it doesn't look good for Decapitated in regards to all we've read, but I'd like to wait until the trial to see the rest of the evidence and how it pans out."

So, what do you do? You pull so fucking hard in the other direction: "well, you're perpetrating rape culture!! You're the reason victims don't come forward!" No honey, straight-up victim blaming and "she was asking for it" perpetrates rape culture, and nobody here is signaling that as a serious opinion.

I hate the fact we've developed into a society, a culture that rewards making rash, uninformed judgements over calm, informed and measured ones.

But, here we are...

A number of posters acknowledging that it looks bad for Decapitated, and the victim is more-than-likely telling the truth, and before carving our opinions in stone for all of eternity, we're being shamed and having the entirety of "rape culture" foisted upon our shoulders. So continue on with your chest-pounding. It happened in the Nazi thread. It happened in the Las Vegas shooting thread. Now it has happened in this thread. Your logic is to, you guessed it, be as emotional impossible.

Goddamn man, what a fucking society we live in today. Civil discourse is fucking dead for this exact reason.

EDIT: Edited some small bits.

Three words: 12 Angry Men.

Go watch it, folks.