Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by Bantokar View Post
    They certainly don´t need a thin skinned orange buffoon with 0 political insight or experience, who caters to the dumbest in society
    Haha, hmmmm....

    ..."refugee" rape a child (something very common and often acceptable in various parts where various "refugees" hail from)

    ...pro-"refugee" establishment covers for rapist with the biggest load of utter bullshit that has probably ever been dropped by any civilized court

    ...and your contribution is "something something something Donald Trump".

    Pfffff, do you want another turn?

    --

    This is a hillarious turn in the whole "all sex is rape and all men are rapists and if you don't like my Facebook post thats rape" hysteria that we usually hear about.

    I guess from now on every woman that gets raped will have to PROVE she didn't give consent.

    And if shes covered in cuts and bruises she'll have to PROVE it wasn't some 50 shades of bullshit fantasy.

    And if somebody catches it on camera (like that gang rape of a child that happened in Germany - rapists also given a pass gg no re) she'll have to PROVE she didn't agree to be part of some low budget dudebro's attempt at amateur porn.

    Like i said...

    ...FORRRWARRRDDDD INTO PROGRESSSSS!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That he sexually abused a kid isn't being disputed, and you're spending ALL your efforts complaining that it is.
    On the subject of effort.

    Have you noticed how much effort you've been spending defending, or otherwise rationalizing the crimes of, a child rapist?

    I mean I think everybody knows ...why ...you are but ...like ...ever sit back and think "damn I've invested too much in this thread"?.

    I know I do sometimes.
    MAGA
    When all you do is WIN WIN WIN

  2. #322
    The Insane Raetary's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Base Camp
    Posts
    19,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7377491.html



    Austria needs serious politicians with balls, like Trump.
    should i remind you of "grab them by the pussy"?


    Formerly known as Arafal

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    He could attack you for the idiotic posts you have been making, but that is frowned upon in this forum.
    My "idiotic post"?

    You mean the one where I pointed out an inconvenient truth?

    Because the idiotic thing is my post ..uh ..and not the fact that a high court actually believed a 10 year old could have given consent to being raped and certainly not that the usual suspects flocked to this thread to defend the kiddy rapist.

    Haha, ok then.
    MAGA
    When all you do is WIN WIN WIN

  4. #324
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Arafal123 View Post
    should i remind you of "grab them by the pussy"?
    Funny thing is, a few years ago we had some old rich guy running in an election, who - among other things - said that it might be worth reconsidering our stance on the death penalty in very severe cases. Needless to say that it utterly destroyed any chances of him getting a sizeable amount of votes.
    Austria really doesn't need OR want people similar to Trump.

  5. #325
    The Unstoppable Force May90's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere special
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendra View Post
    Funny thing is, a few years ago we had some old rich guy running in an election, who - among other things - said that it might be worth reconsidering our stance on the death penalty in very severe cases. Needless to say that it utterly destroyed any chances of him getting a sizeable amount of votes.
    Austria really doesn't need OR want people similar to Trump.
    But what about the comedy value? Austrian politics could use some extra sauce, from what I've heard!
    Quote Originally Posted by King Candy View Post
    I can't explain it because I'm an idiot, and I have to live with that post for the rest of my life. Better to just smile and back away slowly. Ignore it so that it can go away.
    Thanks for the avatar goes to Carbot Animations and Sy.

  6. #326
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    I understand perfectly well what you've said. Point being, there should be no rape statute (up to and including one that would carry a life without parole or even capital sentence if permissible), where the victim is a prepubescent child, to which subjective consent can be raised as a defense in any context.
    Then you clearly don't understand what I've been saying. Because that's not a "defense", and that's not what's going on here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    What you are claiming is that he reasonably could have believed a 10-year consented - something that I and others, like @Stormdash , find morally repugnant.
    This is false. It's pointing out that his intent has to be established for that particular charge, and it was not during the first trial. That charge has nothing to do with the victim's minor status, in any way whatsoever; that's simply not relevant to that particular charge. It's already accounted for, and years in prison sentenced, on the charge of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, which he's still guilty of regardless of the re-trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zombergy View Post
    On the subject of effort.

    Have you noticed how much effort you've been spending defending, or otherwise rationalizing the crimes of, a child rapist?

    I mean I think everybody knows ...why ...you are but ...like ...ever sit back and think "damn I've invested too much in this thread"?.

    I know I do sometimes.
    I haven't spent one second defending the child rapist. He's a monstrous individual. What I'vee been rationalizing is the Austrian court system. Which will almost certainly find him guilty in this second trial; this is a technicality, not some new evidence that wasn't considered. People are accusing that court system of bowing to political will or being overly "PC" or whatever, and it's just false on its face. That is what i've been challenging, not this particular offender's crimes.


  7. #327
    The Unstoppable Force May90's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere special
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Zombergy View Post
    My "idiotic post"?

    You mean the one where I pointed out an inconvenient truth?

    Because the idiotic thing is my post ..uh ..and not the fact that a high court actually believed a 10 year old could have given consent to being raped and certainly not that the usual suspects flocked to this thread to defend the kiddy rapist.

    Haha, ok then.
    The high court didn't even consider that a 10 y/o boy could have given consent. Read the article, for cow's sake, and not the OP's made up title...
    Quote Originally Posted by King Candy View Post
    I can't explain it because I'm an idiot, and I have to live with that post for the rest of my life. Better to just smile and back away slowly. Ignore it so that it can go away.
    Thanks for the avatar goes to Carbot Animations and Sy.

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Firery View Post
    It makes all the difference in law
    If the child consented its sexual activity with a minor
    If the child didn't consent then it's rape on a child
    With the supreme court's interpretation of the current Austrian law that makes a difference.

    The point I'm making is that the consent should be irrelevant for a 10-year old, it is automatically rape carrying the higher penalty. That might require changing the law in Austria (as far as I understand it is already the case in e.g. the UK.)

  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    With the supreme court's interpretation of the current Austrian law that makes a difference.

    The point I'm making is that the consent should be irrelevant for a 10-year old, it is automatically rape carrying the higher penalty. That might require changing the law in Austria (as far as I understand it is already the case in e.g. the UK.)
    Its a paperwork error, nothing more.
    It is a given that a ten year old boy cannot consent. However, it still has to be established and be filed away properly, which didnt happen. It's typical austrian bureaucy.
    Quote Originally Posted by icylock View Post
    Gamon spends more time of his knees and back than haris pilton...

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is false. It's pointing out that his intent has to be established for that particular charge, and it was not during the first trial. That charge has nothing to do with the victim's minor status, in any way whatsoever; that's simply not relevant to that particular charge. It's already accounted for, and years in prison sentenced, on the charge of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, which he's still guilty of regardless of the re-trial.
    Since a 10-years olds consent should be irrelevant there shouldn't be any need for that; unless you claim that he might have fell and accidentally raped the child. That is already the case in the UK - where he would have been guilty of rape and could be sentenced to life without parole; and the consent is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    What I'vee been rationalizing is the Austrian court system.
    You are rationalizing and defending an immoral system - whereas I and others want it changed.

  11. #331
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    With the supreme court's interpretation of the current Austrian law that makes a difference.

    The point I'm making is that the consent should be irrelevant for a 10-year old, it is automatically rape carrying the higher penalty. That might require changing the law in Austria (as far as I understand it is already the case in e.g. the UK.)
    It doesn't require changing anything. He's already convicted of exactly this. That's what you keep ignoring. Statutory rape of a minor is classified as "aggravated sexual abuse of a minor" in Austria. You're seriously complaining pretty much because the specific charge doesn't contain the words "statutory rape" in the title, even though that's what it covers.

    You are rationalizing and defending an immoral system - whereas I and others want it changed.
    Because it already does exactly what you want it to. The idea that it doesn't is something you have invented, by ignoring the facts in the case.


  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkidulgaa View Post
    Its a paperwork error, nothing more.
    It is a given that a ten year old boy cannot consent. However, it still has to be established and be filed away properly, which didnt happen. It's typical austrian bureaucy.
    It is possible that it is a typical Austrian bureaucracy problem - but it still relies on the fact that the possibility of consent matters. If the law (as in the UK) had stated that consent is irrelevant then this wouldn't have happened - and "Denn laut OGH hätte das Erstgericht feststellen müssen, ob der Täter gedacht hat, dass das Opfer mit der sexuellen Handlung einverstanden ist" wouldn't matter since consent or "einverstanden" is irrelevant for a 10-year old.

    Use this to change the Austrian system for the better.

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Since a 10-years olds consent should be irrelevant there shouldn't be any need for that; unless you claim that he might have fell and accidentally raped the child. That is already the case in the UK - where he would have been guilty of rape and could be sentenced to life without parole; and the consent is irrelevant.


    You are rationalizing and defending an immoral system - whereas I and others want it changed.
    Just because it's irrelevant doesnt mean the court can just ignore due process
    Here's whats going to happen: the case will get repeated the exact same way. Except at the end they're going to establish that sexing a 10 year old constitutes rape and file it properly
    The end
    Quote Originally Posted by icylock View Post
    Gamon spends more time of his knees and back than haris pilton...

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It doesn't require changing anything. He's already convicted of exactly this. That's what you keep ignoring. Statutory rape of a minor is classified as "aggravated sexual abuse of a minor" in Austria. You're seriously complaining pretty much because the specific charge doesn't contain the words "statutory rape" in the title, even though that's what it covers.
    No, I'm complaining that it doesn't have "rape" in the title (because words matter) - and that it carries a lesser sentence than rape.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Enkidulgaa View Post
    Just because it's irrelevant doesnt mean the court can just ignore due process
    Are you 100% certain that it is irrelevant according to the supreme court's interpretation of current law?
    The statement from the supreme court indicates the opposite - at least according to my understanding of the German language.

  15. #335
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    No, I'm complaining that it doesn't have "rape" in the title (because words matter) - and that it carries a lesser sentence than rape.
    Which is why there was a second charge, of rape. Which A> doesn't factor in the age of the victim, and B> requires that the prosecution establish intent, which they didn't do, hence the issue.

    They'll re-try it, he'll get convicted of the second charge again, properly, and this will be settled. This is NOT a case of Austria being light on child rape.


  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Which is why there was a second charge, of rape. Which A> doesn't factor in the age of the victim, and B> requires that the prosecution establish intent, which they didn't do, hence the issue.
    And I'm stating that those two facts should be changed - by changing the law if necessary.
    The mere possibility of consent (or "einverstanden") should be irrelevant for a 10-year old.
    Are you truly unable to understand that some of us actually think that laws can be changed in this way in Austria as well?

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I haven't spent one second defending the child rapist. He's a monstrous individual. What I'vee been rationalizing is the Austrian court system. Which will almost certainly find him guilty in this second trial; this is a technicality, not some new evidence that wasn't considered.
    Ok then.

    If that's what you were meaning then I can accept that.

    You know I'm not one to tell other people what they mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    People are accusing that court system of bowing to political will or being overly "PC" or whatever, and it's just false on its face.
    IMO, they have a pretty good leg to stand on to make that claim.

    You hear one thing you dismiss it you hear two things you dismiss it but when there is a regular stream of incidents painting a picture that certain administrations are favoring the "refugees" over their own people then its fair game to consider adding a PCism reagent to any incident involving these "refugees".
    MAGA
    When all you do is WIN WIN WIN

  18. #338
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    They'll re-try it, he'll get convicted of the second charge again, properly, and this will be settled. This is NOT a case of Austria being light on child rape.
    This.

    People are just reading the clickbait thread title and not the actual article.

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Which is why there was a second charge, of rape. Which A> doesn't factor in the age of the victim, and B> requires that the prosecution establish intent, which they didn't do, hence the issue.

    They'll re-try it, he'll get convicted of the second charge again, properly, and this will be settled. This is NOT a case of Austria being light on child rape.
    Says who? If the SC didn't accept it as rape then, how do no changes to the story change it now?

    What new info is going to turn it into rape?

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by Dextroden View Post
    Says who? If the SC didn't accept it as rape then, how do no changes to the story change it now?

    What new info is going to turn it into rape?
    You realise the SC didn't run the trial, they simply reviewed the trial itself and it's going to retrial, at a court.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •