u/CultOfCurtis1

Look, I get it... Questioning anyone's claims about sexual assault gets you an automatic "rape apologist" label in this world. That is definitely not what I am. But let's use common sense here. I was curious from the start of the documentary, because Gabrielle's story was a little off from the start. But I can look past her choosing not to tell anyone about the alleged assault until she decided college was too much and wanted to come home. I can look past her telling the crew that the guy punched her and knocked her unconscious... but telling the court something completely different I can look past a lot of things.

However, please tell me why her two friends would lie to protect a stranger who raped their friend. Everyone wants to focus on "It doesn't matter if she was attracted to the guy!!!" And you're absolutely right. That part of their testimony doesn't matter. And even if we overlook the idea that the story goes like this: "A guy was getting frisky in the shower with two girls, and later left the kinky experience he was having in the bed with two girls to go into the bathroom and assault the other girl, whose friends didn't think it was worth mentioning..." — what gets me is the claim of what happened in the coffee house.

There was ZERO evidence to support Gabrielle's story. However, a disclosure to a friend at the time of the assault could serve as powerful evidence. Gabrielle claimed that she did that. She claimed she told TWO friends in the coffeehouse that she was raped soon after it happened. This alleged interaction happened during the day. No drinking. No partying. Just a normal day.

So tell me: why would TWO of her FRIENDS say this never happened? The comments I see on other posts are nonsense. People claiming these friends are traitors to women and that they should "get what they deserve". Holy f***, really? So they told the truth.... and now they deserve consequences?

Again, tell me WHY they would lie about their friend to protect a stranger rapist who they don't know? And the documentarians were overwhelmingly negligent in their portrayal. They loved telling the story of how Manuel Blanco Vela had to pay the family of Lauren Bajorek because of her death.

However, they failed to mention that the ruling was related to him leaving a drunk girl ALONE on his balcony, knowing that the railing was gone. Not because they thought he killed her. They fail to mention that the courts only awarded HALF of what the family asked, because they ruled that Lauren was half at fault for her own demise. They fail to mention that later courts REDUCED this amount, because they felt Lauren was more than half at fault.

It's also amusing how they interviewed people who insinuated that Lauren's friend must be lying. This girl was with Lauren and Manuel... and when Lauren fell, that girl was INSIDE with Manuel. Again, this woman has ZERO reason to lie. What? She met a strange man and was immediately so enamored with him that she watched him murder her friend but wanted to protect him... all so she could never see him again?

That is the problem with this world, and it gives ACTUAL rape apologists the ammo they need to claim that young men are in danger. People watching this show wanted to believe that Manuel killed Lauren, so they made up a crazy story where the FRIEND lied to protect a murderer she didn't know. People watching wanted to believe Gabrielle's story, so they made up a crazy story where her TWO FRIENDS decided to lie about her disclosing the rape after it happened... to protect a rapist they didn't know.

The documentarians showcased interviews with claims they knew were bogus. They also purposely left out critical information (e.g., related to the civil case) because it didn't support the narrative they were weaving. Is Manuel a creeper? I'm sure that he is. Has he likely SA'd someone? I'm going to guess yes.

But watching an entitled yt girl use her family's government connections to issue a country-wide embassy alert targeting someone who was convicted of no crime... and then a documentary crew crafting a narrative that left out information and presented clearly ridiculous claims as if they could have a factual basis?

The overwhelming majority of SA claims are true. And yes, many actual offenders are never brought to justice. However, that doesn't justify what happened here. And when folks show up in the comments to say "He was convicted!" — let's stop pretending that that means anything to you. Because we both know that — had he not been convicted — you would've used that as evidence of a broken system rather than evidence that he was innocent.

Heck, we probably don't even have to assume. I'm guessing this gets overturned on appeal due to the COMPLETE and TOTAL lack of evidence. When that happens, will you say it's evidence of his innocence.... or evidence that the system is broken?

I believe almost every woman in this story. But Gabrielle is clearly lying, and this documentary crew wasn't trying to present a case to us. It was presenting a predetermined narrative.

This just started this week. Screenshot showing what I'm running into with EVERY item I try to post. I didn't even realize it until today when I noticed everything I ordered this last week hadn't shown up.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased due to my enjoyment of M. Night Shyamalan, but this movie has a whimsical, magical sense of fantasy around it that can make you feel things. Yes, the setup is fairly abrupt — and even later in the film, characters seemed to accept insanely unlikely scenarios without question.

But the storytelling is still enjoyable. The premise is unique. The acting is great. And to be honest, if you're a fan of Shyamalan's films (not just the big ones), then you know that feeling his films create. A definite disconnect from reality, but one that taps into something special inside of you if you let yourself just enjoy the immersion.

Almost a childlike feeling of still being able to see the world as magical — even after you grow up and see what's in the shadows.

During the Senate debates over what would become the 14th Amendment in 1866, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the proposed Citizenship Clause because he believed it would grant citizenship to the American-born children of Chinese immigrants and other foreigners. He viewed this as an undesirable consequence of the amendment.

The amendment's supporters did not respond by saying that the clause was intended only for formerly enslaved people or their descendants. Instead, they continued to defend the broad language of the amendment, which reads:

*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."*

Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, specifically discussed certain exceptions, including children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy occupiers, and certain Native Americans who were then considered members of separate sovereign nations. Immigrants, however, were not listed among those exceptions.

This raises an interesting historical question: Does the fact that Cowan objected to birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants—and that no one corrected him by saying the amendment was limited to former slaves—tell us something about how the framers understood the scope of the Citizenship Clause?

I'm interested in the historical evidence and how historians and legal scholars interpret this particular exchange in the congressional debates, rather than the modern political arguments surrounding birthright citizenship.

After doing a little more reading, I decided it might benefit my trap to have a taller pot. So I got a taller pot. I also read that it's a good idea to put the pot in a pan of water so the moss stays boggy. So I started doing that. Made a point of giving her more sun per day too (she was probably only getting 6 hrs of morning sun per day). In almost no time, it looks like there's a new place growing to the side (left in the picture). Do you concur? Also, curious as to why mine aren't red?