Why are sexual assaults still so under reported? (Iran, middle east, myth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know a man who does not consider himself a rapist. He loves to tell his buddies a story about how he hired a hooker when he was stationed in Korea in the 80's and he didn't find her especially pleasing, so he "flipped her over" and did something to her that she had NOT consented to, and he loves to imitate her screaming in pain and "trying to swim off the bed." He thinks it's real funny. I think it's rape.
Disgusting and sickening...all the worse that he loves telling the story to everyone that will hear it. I would have a word or two with him just so he know that not everyone thinks it is funny, cute, or even okay.
Please try to recall a more accurate recollection of what really transpired -- no district attorney would tell a jury " can you convict purely on circumstantial evidence where alcohol was involved all the way around"....
Even in some bizarre fantasy scenario the Judge would bring any attorney into check who would even dream of pulling something so unethical.
Said it right in court, that’s what our legal system is becoming and jurors are the only thing standing between an every increasingly predatory “justice” system and defendants.
Said it right in court, that’s what our legal system is becoming and jurors are the only thing standing between an every increasingly predatory “justice” system and defendants.
So you state the district attorney said to the jury "can you please convict him purely on circumstantial evidence where there was alcohol all the way around?" You are sticking with that story?
Can you define "predatory justice system and defendants?
I was in jury duty and the prosecution was asking if we could convict purely on circumstantial evidence where alchoal was involved all the way around. Just because serious accusations are made does not mean it really happened OR mean it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt no matter how much you want it too.
IF you choose to stay in a poisen enviornment your going to get sick and thats disfunctional. Courts and jurors should not be weighted down with this sort of stuff when we have LITTLE kids being abused and killed and other serious crimes with actual innocent victems. Not people that put themselves in high risk situations because its "their right".
You must have told some good ones to get on that jury.
I was in jury duty and the prosecution was asking if we could convict purely on circumstantial evidence where alchoal was involved all the way around. Just because serious accusations are made does not mean it really happened OR mean it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt no matter how much you want it too.
IF you choose to stay in a poisen enviornment your going to get sick and thats disfunctional. Courts and jurors should not be weighted down with this sort of stuff when we have LITTLE kids being abused and killed and other serious crimes with actual innocent victems. Not people that put themselves in high risk situations because its "their right".
Gotta love and quote some of these gems, right from the playbook on the mindset of some who don't understand squat about dv
"Courts and jurors should not be weighted down with this sort of stuff"
"...we have other serious crimes with actual victems."
These quotes speak for themselves-- pure "genius" stuff it is
So you state the district attorney said to the jury "can you please convict him purely on circumstantial evidence where there was alcohol all the way around?" You are sticking with that story?
Can you define "predatory justice system and defendants?
Negitive, I’m not getting paid to do a PhD thesis for a passive aggressive question by an anoynomous internet poster, sorry.
Negitive, I’m not getting paid to do a PhD thesis for a passive aggressive question by an anoynomous internet poster, sorry.
So... explaining a bit more in depth requires you to "do a PhD thesis". IOW it sounds like the answer is it didn't quite transpire in that way. Now you don't have to have the task of writing a thesis
No they dont, and the fact that this this an issue proves my point. I am also under no dilusion that I deserve to go to a rough area of town at 1am and buy some weed and not be beaten or robbed.
Your statement is complete nonsense and it might get you killed or raped one day. I fully support everyones right to take risks but dont come crying to the court or the police when you make highly risky life choices and expect them to form some sort of kangaroo court/lynch mob for you because you put youself in a sitiuation where there were not credible witnesses and people of questionalble moral charachter.
This is part of the entitlement snow flake safe space mentality. If you want to go do this sketchy stuff you do so at your own risk, period.
So just because somebody makes stupid choices they aren't entitled to the protection of the law?
For example, let's say somebody walks around flashing a bunch of cash in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood. He gets beat up and robbed.
The assailant is caught. So we should let the assailant go because the victim was being stupid and asking for it?
Luckily, virtually nobody - liberal or conservative - agrees with your view of justice.
So... explaining a bit more in depth requires you to "do a PhD thesis". IOW it sounds like the answer is it didn't quite transpire in that way. Now you don't have to have the task of writing a thesis
Its because I know that you staunchly disagree and anything short of video audio transcript (and probably not even then) wont convince you. I was being a little snarky because I was able to pick up on your thinly veiled passive aggression.
You think people should be able to engage in high risk behavior and then all the white knights (police, justice system, jurors, and other emasculated men) should just swoop in and modify the justice system for you because you (or someone) decided to go out dressed like a tramp to have a hook up at some sketchy club late at night and it did not go so well. I say no you dont, if you cant provide shadow of a doubt evidence any responsible citizen juror is going to move to over turn and if its a state that elects in their judges they will eventually be voted out. I think more of these accused should be moving to 7 figure law suits of the media as well becasue the media convicts them before they even see a court room and their professional carrers are likely ruined, considering some of them wont ever be competitive for a professional job a nice 3-5 million settlement would send a message.
And yes the ID is a real thing, if you are an attractive young woman and you know you have the leverage, then you know exactly what you are doing, you are turning on the whole crowd but only selecting one or two, well the ID of some of the non select will turn to violence. Thats human behavior.
And if you do this where there are few if any credible witnesses, guess what you are screwed. Attention whoring and getting men all hot and bothered and then giving them the cold shoulder can result in violence. I dont need a PhD to know that or an exhaustive statistical survey.
So just because somebody makes stupid choices they aren't entitled to the protection of the law?
For example, let's say somebody walks around flashing a bunch of cash in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood. He gets beat up and robbed.
The assailant is caught. So we should let the assailant go because the victim was being stupid and asking for it?
Luckily, virtually nobody - liberal or conservative - agrees with your view of justice.
IF there is not witnesses or other evidence that it occured then yea that person is screwed. In the case of property theft there is often times vin numbers license plates, credit card records, etc so there is plenty of tangible evidence absent the need for a credible witness. With claims of rape there is seldom other evidence to distinguish between consentual sex and rape.
Because the consequences for rape are so severe the burden of proof is higher and THAT is where I wont be quite because the liberal crowd wants to slowly wittle away at the burden of proof for rape cases which makes a mockery of the justice system. You dont just get to point your finger and cry and the guy gets 20 to life, sorry that would drive (and is starting to drive) ultra paranoid behavior which has social and national consequences, many unforseen.
If someone robs you of a $100 (so long as they dont use a deadly weapon) thats barely a felony. Big difference from rape charges. If you cant see that then there is no need to continue the disucssion.
And yes, for now, most people agree with me that in order to convict of serious crimes like rape the burden of evidence needs to be beyond a shawdow of a doubt and that burden is on the plaintiff. I know that some snowflakers and safe spacers want to bring back lynch mobs but so far they are not majority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
