Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What do you want specifically? I wasn't there so I can't give you a first hand account.Do you have more details?
Oh ok, so lets start charging anyone with rape for daring to perform anything against even the slightest act of resistance. People like you are brainwashed and why society today is a joke.Sexual acts are considered rape, whether penetration or not... not hard to understand. This also goes towards the consent issues that are being brought up. It's clear he wasn't 100% ok with it.
No. I grew up in a different era.Oh ok, so lets start charging anyone with rape for daring to perform anything against even the slightest act of resistance. People like you are brainwashed and why society today is a joke.
I wonder why Andrew Lovett got acquitted for doing something very similar, except with penetration and was explicitly told to stop. No doubt he qualifies for an exception in your inane rulebook.
1. Reading difficulties? He's not my friend, I don't even know him, just mutually acquainted.This is all your subjective emotional opinion based on what you have been told. You would have to post the case for us to be able to look at it objectively and see whether he was hard done by.
Most rape cases are based purely on oral evidence (no pun intended) given by the complainant, accused and other witnesses, not actual physical evidence. The jury obviously felt that the complainant's story was reliable enough to find your friend guilty beyond reasonable doubt (not to mention the recording of the phone conversation).
Obviously the central issue was consent. Just because the complainant didn't protest or physically resist (or as you said "push his head off") doesn't necessarily mean he consented to getting head. The complainant has to give free and conscious permission either by words or conduct. Your own post suggests that the complainant was "not sure" going into it. If your friend didn't bother to seek consent before starting to give head then that is on him I'm afraid. Even if the complainant gave reluctant consent after the initial act of penetration, the fact that there wasn't consent when it started still constitutes rape.
Also the fact that alcohol was present may have played a factor in that he was too drunk to give consent (pure speculation).
There is a defence of reasonable belief that consent was present on the part of the accused. This is looked at both subjectively (did the accused himself believe consent was present) and objectively (was this belief reasonable). Clearly the jury felt that his belief was not reasonable on the facts.
and what's that based on? Your own biased, uninformed viewpoint? How do you know it wasn't a reverse of 12 angry men, with most of them reluctantly convinced by one fierce, angry harpy that he's guilty? They deliberated for 3 days.The jury obviously felt that the complainant's story was reliable enough to find your friend guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and this, ladies and gentlemen, is why society is falling. With questionably consensual blowjobs receiving the same charge as forcefully pinning a woman down and penetrating her, it's only a matter of time before looking at people funny will make you liable for sexual assault. Already happened in Sweden.Obviously the central issue was consent. Just because the complainant didn't protest or physically resist (or as you said "push his head off") doesn't necessarily mean he consented to getting head
and yet, he went into the room with him. Strike 1. He let his pants be pulled down. Strike 2. He didn't push the guy's head back when being sucked. Strike 3. He even said it felt good while testifying in court before quickly backtracking.Your own post suggests that the complainant was "not sure" going into it
Sure is easy to claim something is complex without going into even the slightest bit of detail eh? Stupid people like yourself don't like making arguments so you just tell people to "do the research" and saying they're stupid.No. I grew up in a different era.
Yeah way to summarise something complex into a few words. Maybe you should read up about the case, there was more to it than that.. but hey, you clearly have some emotive attachment to this type of thing with your friend and emotions bring out the stupidity in people.
And that sums up your posting and view on this case, straight into insults with anyone who disagrees with you.Sure am.
Even with a strong, emotional viewpoint, everything I've said still more plausible than anything a cretin like yourself can come up with.
and yet even with this seemingly emotional viewpoint, you still side with the contrary, and you're completely incapable of backing yourself up. You were also the first to bring the insults.And that sums up your posting and view on this case, straight into insults with anyone who disagrees with you.
Incapable of backing myself up? I just want to make people do their own research for once. Sick of people getting all emotional and then asking to provide links. You have google, you have the internet, do your own research before you post uninformed bullshit. If you did this during school, you'd get an F for failing to reference any material to support your opinion.and yet even with this seemingly emotional viewpoint, you still side with the contrary, and you're completely incapable of backing yourself up. You were also the first to bring the insults.
At least with my insults, I'm correct about you.
You are completely incapable of backing yourself up, and you're only further proving what a failure you are.Incapable of backing myself up? I just want to make people do their own research for once. Sick of people getting all emotional and then asking to provide links. You have google, you have the internet, do your own research before you post uninformed bullshit. If you did this during school, you'd get an F for failing to reference any material to support your opinion.
Go back to your main account.
Fine if you don't want to do your own research, here it is.You are completely incapable of backing yourself up, and you're only further proving what a failure you are.
I said the Lovett case was similar, you could've challenged that, but instead resorted to the old "do your research" fallacy. Your input to this thread has been worthless and you clearly don't have the intellectual capacity to discuss such matters. Stick to sport.
Mr Grace had described as "preposterous" the woman's evidence that she had tried to text her ex-boyfriend for help while having sex with Lovett. He said the phone records did not make this possible.
and how does that make it completely dissimilar to what I outlined in the OP and some of the following posts? It's still a rape case revolving around the question of consent.Fine if you don't want to do your own research, here it is.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...ot-guilty-of-rape-charges-20110725-1hwii.html
Things like that are what makes and breaks a case. She lied, therefore it is quite easy for a jury to acquit someone on consent issues.
and here is an example of you getting desperate and going out on an unrelated tangent. Pathetic, you're a complete failure and a waste of time.Honestly, what is it with people these days and being unable to do the slightest bit of research into a topic? I remember when I was at school you spent weeks researching before writing a paper. Shame the standards have plummeted.
Here I'll fetch you a box of tissues.and how does that make it completely dissimilar to what I outlined in the OP and some of the following posts? It's still a rape case revolving around the question of consent.
and here is an example of you getting desperate and going out on an unrelated tangent. Pathetic, you're a complete failure and a waste of time.
I'll be waiting for posts from other people now.
(Along with your viewpoint that there was a very reasonable doubt that the accused blew him without consent)Goes to court, defence's case clearly stronger than prosecution's, victim changes his story twice. Jury then somehow deliberates for 3 days until the guilty verdict came in just 20 minutes ago. Now a 22 year old boy with a promising future probably goes to jail for 5 years.
If 2 parties enter a room and engage in a sexual act, they are both capable of communicating their lack of consent and one of the parties decides they are not a willing participant but chooses not to communicate their lack of consent, then in my opinion it shouldn't be rape.Whatever, mutual acquaintance then.
Got anything worthwhile to add?
Did the "victim" claim he was intoxicated. Laws now protect intoxicated women from responsibility, at least in the USA. I assume this is the same for same sex couplings.Whatever, mutual acquaintance then.
Got anything worthwhile to add?