As noted in previous articles/blog-posts: when covering the arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and appeals in this case, Barton Dieters has often been less a reporter than a myrmidon of and cheerleader for the prosecution, and later for the judge who twice upheld Abigail’s 8-25 year prison sentence and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether, ludicrously defined as a “bracelet.”
For example, a reporter who uses the phrase “ex-tutor guilty of raping her student” is not a true journalist, objective and neutral, but an advocate, ideologue, propagandist, and CSA victimologist, who is using language not to describe but rather to distort and pervert objective reality for ideological reasons. Not having penises, women can’t commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word. And Abigail wasn’t guilty of “rape” even if defined as synonymous with violent sexual assault. If anyone was a victim of rape in this liaison, it was Abigail if she’s telling the truth about her de jure “victim” forcing himself on her.
And his tendentiousness was blatant in using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” in covering the judge’s decisions and arguments at her resentencing. “Dispatch” means “to kill with quick efficiency; to dispose of something rapidly or efficiently”; to “defeat.” “Shoot down” means to “kill, defeat, discredit.” And a synonym of “shoot down” is “skewer,” which means to “criticize or ridicule sharply and effectively.” So, according to Dieters, the judge killed Tieber’s arguments, metaphorically, with rapidity and efficiency. He defeated, discredited, and skewered them.
Writing that the judge “rejected” Tieber’s arguments would have been true journalism, neutral and objective, an exemplar of simply reporting the facts rather than siding with the judge, indeed hailing the judge’s decision by using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down,” and against Tieber.
His use of such words not only implies but asserts that Tieber was wrong in claiming that Abigail was not a threat to “re-offend” and in arguing that a life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with a ankle-tether/”bracelet” was “cruel and unusual punishment,” and that the judge was right in upholding her 8-25 year prison sentence and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring.
The use of words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” not only asserts that Tieber’s arguments were wrong, contrary to facts and logic and reason, but also ridiculous, irrational, delusional.
Imagine the outrage and hysteria if he had sided with Tieber and against the judge by asserting that Tieber was right and the judge was wrong and used words and phrases to praise Tieber and belittle the judge.
As a CSA victimologist, he obviously thinks of her as a “rapist” and “child molester,” perhaps even a “pedophile,” and the biological man who assented to or initiated sex with her as a “child” and “victim” of “rape” and CSA who’ll be “traumatized” and “scarred for life,” whatever the facts and circumstances, even if he did rape her, as with the “victim” of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall,
And he obviously believes she deserves to be enslaved and abused and degraded in prison for at least 8-years if not longer and then subjected to a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, for a “crime” in which the “victim” enjoys the sex more than the woman who “raped” and “molested” him and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.”
The description of Abigail’s lover and other young men who consent to or initiate sex with adult women as “victims” is not an objective fact but an ideological dogma and legal classification. Journalists and reporters and others who use the term “victim” without quotation marks are legitimizing this ideological dogma and legal classification rather than describing objective reality. They’re reifying a dogma and theory for which there is no objective evidence and empirical substantiation.
To those of us who aren’t MRAs and/or CSA victimologists, or brainwashed and vitiated by same, precisely the opposite is palpably true: the judge was wrong and Tieber was right. The judge’s arguments -what he now believes or affects to believe given his “reeducation” by and/or fear of MRAs and CSA victimologists- were ridiculous, irrational, based on lies and delusions.
To those of us who are honest, realistic, objective, and rational on this matter, Tieber was right in arguing that Abigail is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age, and thus her sentence of 8-25 years in prison was grossly excessive and iniquitous, and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove was “cruel and unusual punishment” in the sense of being wholly gratuitous, completely unnecessary to protect anyone from anything.
But why, seemingly, does he hate her more than most true sex criminals, at least those who are black, Muslim, and “Hispanic”/”Latino”: e.g., males (including biological men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children”) who commit violent/forcible rapes and gang-rapes of adult females and underage adolescent girls, most heinously those who use knives and guns and terrorize and brutalize and gravely injure their victims; or men (including underage pubescent teenagers) who rape or prey on and molest prepubertal children.
And does he hate the low IQ brutes and savages who, in Detroit alone each year for decades, commit hundreds of rapes and murders and thousands of other violent and mala in se crimes, who’ve destroyed a city that was once extolled as the “Paris of the West”? Of course not, not as a group or as individuals. I’m sure he views most of them with compassion, as “victims” of “racism” and the “legacy of slavery and segregation.” And the hysteria over Abigail’s intrigue with a young man of 15 distracts from the anarchy and mayhem and warfare in Detroit and, to a lesser degree, Flint and Grand Rapids.
One senses that his hatred of Abigail is, in some ways and to some degree, whatever the reasons, deeply personal. One would think he was the “victim’s father,” or a relative. Or that the “victim’s” parents were his friends and/or neighbors, whom he knows intimately.
He appears to revel in her anguish and degradation, pain and suffering. I’m sure he was happy to see her in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons at her over 2-hour sentencing, so enervated by fear and angst and despair and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice. I’m sure he hopes her life in prison is hellish, abusive, degrading, and nightmarish, the more so the better. Thanks to the media, led by him, she’s surely the most infamous, and probably the most hated, of all 2000-plus inmates. He might even be glad to hear that she was assaulted, brutally and viciously, or even murdered.