How many people here know about the sentencing of Corporal Lance Daniel Smith? And what do you think?
Personally, I think that he is INNOCENT. The girl, Nicole, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, is having her revenge for being humiliated. She had sex with four men at one time, she and all of them were drunk, and after the sex, she realizes that they didn't fall in love with her and aren't gonna marry her and take her to America, so she's screaming rape. Smith isn't an ordinary looking guy. He's good-looking, and Nicole probably had her eye on him from day one! Hoping he'd fall for her and run away with her or something!
I'm here. I'm an American living in the Philippines. It's a fact that Nicole (the girl) had an American pen pal (boyfriend) at the saem time she was having sex with the four American soldiers. That means she's had her mind on marrying an American and going to America, for quite a while already! I think she did the deed with the four soldiers, in hopes of a quicker outcome.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Real motives are the hardest things to ascertain. They cannot be studied scientifically, more so deduced mathematically. We can only make conjectures and that is as far as we can go. A lay person, activating his non-primitive neural networks to produce judgment using his everyday, unpretentious, non-highfalutin, lexicon would say that Nicole is a certified veatch—that even a castrated dog could smell her veachitude without sniffing too hard. Not only did she go out with these Americans, lap-danced with them hoping to feel what is in the “great between”, but also drank with them like sobriety didn’t exist at all. And damn who cares what might happen to me afterwards, says her midconsciousness.
Haven’t she watched the great, high-budget Filipino movies where a huge man with a fat hairy belly, sometimes drunk and at times just plain horny, would go after a darling little girl passing by, overpowering her until he gets what his carnal body wants? These rape myths and grandmotherly warnings about kalandian (flirtatious acts) clearly didn’t reach Nicole’s ears. If she were a decent woman, she shouldn’t have engaged herself in such a vulnerable encounter. In some sense, and weighty it is at that, she consents the rape; it has become a consensual act of copulation. It just so happened that she was dumped off some side-walk and she didn’t like that. But what right does she have for not liking it? She has made a trash out of herself the moment she stayed with the Americans for hours on end doing things which bar goers only could ever know.
In addition, she played behind the 1) feminist guile of women being the only eligible victims—as if women were incapacitated biologically to machinate testosterone-toppling schemes, and 2) the defense on par with insanity and vulnerability plea—drunkenness. “I was drunk and didn’t know what was happening. So take my side my fellow Filipino prosecutors! Pity me for...for all is see is black!” Black your face! As if she was forced to become drunk.
A sociologist would think Daniel Smith’s action as rational on the bases of 1) cultural difference: "would you go out with me" means let’s do the IT thing which Freud so enthusiastically sublimated to books, and 2) role-behavior congruence. The latter I would like to explain in brief. Our roles gave people clear hints of what they can expect from us and what they can do to us. For example, a doctor. His role is to heal and that is understood tacitly. No problem! I’m sick, I go see a doctor, I pay him respect like an uneducated bummer I am. Another example is a prostitute. A man can say I can do the Freudian missionary dance (plus other variation) with you with or without consent. In this context, let me ask you, what is consent for a prostitute? It is money. You pay her large sums of “In God We Trust” bills (which she oh so carefully reads) then that is what you call consent. Pay her none and you do not have her consent. Now for a prostitute, giving out consent is morally impermissible because it merely boils down to money matters. In other words, prostitutes do not have the right to give consent. Giving consent is like asking for money and the distinction between money and moral granting of consent becomes insignificant in this setting. In this light, the much humanistic arguments that "prostitutes also have rights" falters. I never knew that rights can be sold.
Going back, Nicole assumed the role of a slightly less than a prostitute—yeah! She just only stuffed her bladder with alcohol and did lap-shattering movements to Daniel Smith and stayed up all night till her eyebags compare with hushpuppy ears…and yeah, she’s less than a prostitute you say.
The response to this role of course was a behavior that was congruent with it, her being perceived as "game and all out". Who wouldn’t "mistake" her for such? Blah blah blah. This is going to be boring if I take this role-behavior congruence too far. In the end, what I would like to say is:
Daniel Smith should not suffer for Nicole’s sexually provocative advances. He must be released and Nicole should be fed to the sharks for she has already served her purpose here on Earth.
- 1 decade ago
Hi, um...i live in Manila. To keep you posted, last Dec. 29, 11:30 p.m.(Manila time), the US Embassy took custody of Smith. it's a hush-hush news that night since people are like resting, busy , and are looking forward to the new year. nobody could've known that if ABS-CBN's late night news program Bandila first reported it. Many are surprised since the judge gave his word that Smith stay in the Makati City Jail for Philippine Custody. But according to a US spokesperson, they took Smith "on orders of the Philippine government" which gives speculation that President Arroyo might have allowed such thing to happen on provisions of the VFA. Of course, the HO' and her lawyer were very angry. but personally, i think it's wha'ts best for smith. i'm sure as hell HE'S NOT GUILTY! he does not deserve to be be jailed, even if the jail is in US Embassy. and correction....um...i've read the newspaper since that day that this is on the news and the other 3 marines DID NOT HAVE SEX with nicole(contrary to what you said earlier), only smith admitted to having sex with her. just thought you needed to know. but still, i stand by my beliefs that he's not guilty.
what dumb rapist would put on a condom before doing the act, right?! i mean, that's probably the last thing on a rapist's mind 'coz the only thing running in their mind's deflowering the victim, right?! also, why would a rapist leave the condom if the condom may be used against them? let us support JUSTICE for DANIEL SMITH movement.
- roadwarriorLv 41 decade ago
Well, the soldier who raped a 14-year old girl, then murdered her and her family in Mahmoudiya, Iraq is good-looking too, isn't he?.
Scott Peterson, who murdered his wife (Laci Peterson and her unborn baby) is good-looking and well-mannered, isn't he?.
Don't say that being a good-looking guy is a proof that he will never commit a crime!. Never judge a book by its cover.
By the way, most Americans felt that OJ Simpson indeed murdered his wife. But he was found innocent by the court. What would you say about that??.
Do not declare someone's guilt or innocence through mere personal opinions, without knowing the details and facts of the case. You, yourself is not a witness and was not present when the event happened. So you are not in a position to judge his guilt or innocence. Only the prosecution and defense lawyers and witnesses can attest to the defendant's guilt or innocence, and no one else.
- ZLv 51 decade ago
Its so hard in cases like these without being there,... I think that the overall outcome was pretty damn extreme though regardless... I pray it isn't like you said,. but at the same time,. the conditions are a little suspicious...