@RGreggKeller@missouriscout@saintlouismayor Why should someone force oneself to "get along with" a sexual predator or support that person gaining additional power that he shouldn't have?
@scottcheatham@TessYocom Yes, he has the legal presumption of innocence, which translates to many things but absolutely does not mean people have to believe him. He sexually assaulted me and would've been convicted if the special prosecutor didn't defer prosecution. Someone saw him sexually assault me.
@AllenKranawett3 Because @RobertsforSTL is a sexual predator and one who performed poorly as an assistant prosecutor, at that, and sexually harassed his coworkers while there, there shouldn't be a need to "tank [his] chances".
@MarkMaxwellTV How is the fact that Steve Roberts was "running a bill that has support from SLPS" at the time when she expressed a dislike for him relevant?
@DonnybrookStl What I have a problem with is being retraumatized repeatedly because, for some reason, the person who sexually assaulted me is considered by the local news media to be deserving of attention that paints him as a victim. Who cares if the Mayor swears and doesn't like everyone?
@139_j@DonnybrookStl In one of my depositions, the attorney who represented @RobertsforSTL in my civil sexual assault case against him called my friend unladylike for calling him, the person who sexually assaulted me, something similar in a text message and I let him know how asinine that was.
@MarkMaxwellTV@JoshuaLawrenc_ The new stuff is the same as the old stuff: @RobertsforSTL should not be given power because of what he does with it and, as such, shouldn't have even been considered for the appointment but managed to get there somehow because of his privilege.
@MiniTuxedo We know who never should've been elected to any position of power and who lost his last attempt to gain more power, too. Who would want a sexual predator in charge of making charging decisions? It isn't really news that someone, especially the Mayor, wouldn't want that.
@CNormantonsouth@stl7thward@ksdknews You sure didn't hear that about what he did to me. He would've been convicted if the special prosecutor hadn't chosen to defer prosecution instead of charging him at the time.
@miguel2586 I don't understand why a thing that people don't want suppressed isn't news, unless the assumption is that there's always someone who wants something suppressed. If people do good things, it's not news unless someone is mad about it? Can't good things be news?
@September43@sierramike320@MarkMaxwellTV He should have been charged and I'm confident he would've been convicted had the case been appropriately prosecuted. After all, aside from the other evidence, it's not every day that you have a third party actually witness a sexual assault.
@myrachickennug@ksdknews You can't be found guilty if the special prosecutor doesn't try the case against you and instead defers prosecution (with no written reason provided for the same and a verbal reason told to me that proved to be a lie).
@hyperhouse@MarkMaxwellTV It will, but there's no reason why his personnel file should be made public, so it's good that other things weren't disclosed. If only Lohmar and his office had done their jobs (and not lied to me), I still think about how different things would be, who wouldn't have been harmed.
@myrachickennug@ksdknews If you're saying this I chose money over "protecting other women" and/or "over prosecution", you do not know the facts, including that I went to the police. When he was not prosecuted criminally (prosecution was deferred), a civil suit was my only option to seek redress.