From The Rude News:
Look how this monster screwed up the system by playing rape victim. A victim-celebrating culture allowed this beast to go free and murder those children. Police need more freedoms to question “victims.” She refuses to be examined? This is what you get with lefty lawyers and loser laws.
I find this man's focus telling. In this case a woman, Tiffany Hall, murdered a friend, killing the fetus inside the other woman in the process. Later she drowned that woman's children. Yet despite multiple murders this man doesn't group Hall with other murderers. Instead he groups her with all those "victims" who report being raped and he wants the police to treat every rape "victim" who reports like a potential murderer.
Hey, if it happened even once then we must assume it happens every time. But that is a very dangerous assumption which willfully throws justice and due process under the bus.
The only actions of Hall's which he focuses on is Hall's decision, post-murder, to take the fetus to a state park and to call the police from there claiming she gave birth after being raped and the subsequent murder of the murdered woman's children. He shows no outrage over a mother's horrific death. That would disrupt his disdain for focusing on women who are "victims" of violent crime.
If Hall was viewed by the police as a violent crime suspect when they responded to her report of being raped -- which I find no evidence of in any of the stories about this case -- then the freedom the police would need to do what this man wanted them to do would give this same freedom when the police are suspicious of men who report being crime victims.
This added freedom would automatically open the door to more aggressive police actions against all those suspected of committing acts of violence who don't claim to be crime victims. That would include suspected rapists.
Certainly under this aggressive, do-whatever-it-takes investigative model more alleged rapists would confess. That would result in more real rapists being convicted, but it would also result in more wrongful convictions. Of course this man would blame those who treat "victims" ethically for a problem that his own suggestions would help to create.
That side effect of this man's desire makes it clear that this man isn't thinking about what his suggested changes would do to the potential treatment of men like him if those changes were applied without gender prejudice. But then he clearly doesn't want any changes to be applied without gender prejudice.
Which means that he isn't ignorant of the injustices his suggestions would cause.