Not really. I think the judge had some personal feelings involved, the second a judge starts on with a speech I think it should be labeled a mistrial, don't involve some psuedo moral bullshit in justice. In a lot of ways the US is a third world country, don't go throwing labels.
And if he was drinking, he couldn't consent, either.
The accuser made a case, with no proof. The defendant doesn't have to prove (or disprove) anything. Justice is based on the accuser being able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the event happened in the manner that he/she claims. The judge made a decision based on circumstantial testimony with no concrete evidence. Period.
Last edited by Mistame; 2016-07-23 at 07:59 PM.
That is not an acceptable barometer for conviction. Your argument boils down to i'm giving you tough love at a bar for being a moron, but I still care about you so I choose to walk you home. But you say I rape you. And that's ok for you? What if the positions are reversed. And I "witness" you rape me with no other witnesses around and someone else saw us having a completely unrelated argument earlier.
That's such a flimsy ass argument and has no place in a court of law. It should literally be laughed out.
Dragonflight Summary, "Because friendship is magic"
Listen and believe! What can go wrong!
She never resigned her consent either. It was only after they had sex does she mention to anyone "I'm not sure I wanted it, but I never really said no." You look at it from this "doesn't mean she consented to sex at the time of the act" bull shit, but you don't look at it from both sides. She texts him for drinks and sex, he is excited for drinks and sex (potentially). Their stories are so incredibly different, it's so weird that the judge would go one way over the other. But her sayin (not exactly her words, but my interpretation) "I'm not sure I wanted it, but I never really said no." is like... facepalm worthy. She was the one who initiated the sex topic by basically saying "i'll give you sex tonight if you come out" and then later on NEVER struggled, or said no. This is the problem. Her word over his, and his over hers. It's a terrible defense to say "I was just going to take it because I didn't want to get hurt" and then go and tell your friend "I'm not sure I wanted it, I mean... I never said no, but I dunno".
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
Guess this will be a reality soon. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/jwmvxd...-love-contract
I seriously believed that the story had been changed in some way when I first read it... So I looked around, and I can not find ANYTHING for the case to have been judged on other than the testimony of the two involved... As far as I have been able to determine the verdict really WAS given based 100% off of the judges belief in her testimony.
This is so far past ridiculous in a modern legal system it is unbelievable.