On second thoughts maybe my original post was a bit inflammatory and biased. I would redo that post if I could, but at the same time I think there is something very strange about the case. I think that if it's shown that he did sexually assault her, like if there was some sort of witness involved, that he should be put away for a long time, maybe not 5 years though as that still sounds a bit much for me if she partially consented herself.
The point is that we don't know what happened. She said she felt sick and because of this the judge said: “No reasonable man could believe a girl or woman in a condition like this could reasonably consent to a sexual encounter of any kind,” he said.
I ask you, and not saying whether he did the offence or not but, is that statement taken on its own not a load of crap? Women can and do consent to sexual activity before and after getting drunk and feeling sick all the time. I certainly hope there was more "evidence" than that!!!
Listowel bouncer jailed for sex assault | Kerry's Eye
He didn't rape anyone, rape was never used, not even attempted rape. It was "sexual assault". Calling it rape is slander... rape is much worse. And lots of things damage you psychologically, people get on with it.Originally Posted by doozer121
Her skin might have got scraped as she fell over herself. Semi-conscious? Obviously because she was drunk!! Don't say "bruises all over" if you're not sure how many there were.
Yeah and they had his full version of the story, we don't. Usually when people do something like that there's a reason for it.
"victims" on rare occasions get it into their heads sometimes and run with it. It might be only 1 in 1000 people that does it or has the mentality to do it, but some people get the victim mentality into their heads and love that feeling. If you look at what she's saying, to me it sounds dramatic. I personally just don't go for it, but that's just my opinion.
I've had some experience with something that's in some ways similar to it. I strongly believe that some people who pretend they're "victims", 1/1000, like the whole process of it. They like going to the police station, making out the report, they like the feeling of having been "violated" and having to be the courageous person getting on with their lives in spite of it all. They feel it gives them a 1-up in society. Again it's just a very, very rare type of already psychologically unstable person but it can happen. They like the attention. They like that whatever they do or feel is right. They are bored, so they love the drama of it. You mentioned Hollywood... well for them it turns into Hollywood. Even if she doesn't admit it to herself. I'm telling you because it's the truth, either that or she was so brainwashed by the media. And I have had experience with something not where I did anything wrong, but with a girl acting like such a victim before.
Okay fine, I'll u-turn on my sympathy for him being drunk. But if that's the case, then you can't have too much sympathy for her being drunk either.
The CCTV evidence offered wasn't much or it would be all over the headlines of the case. The CCTV evidence certainly didn't prove her dragged her behind the skip and forcibly undressed her like you're saying it did.
But at the same time we can't use one guy as a scapegoat where they were both drunk and there was no evidence. It's wrong. You have to have decent evidence to convict someone.
Of course I sympathise entirely with the complainant if she really was sexually assaulted and knew what was happening all the time. But what about how she's talking about bringing another legal case against the people who showed up to shake his hand???
Surely be to god if they were legally allowed to be there in court at that time, that they are entitled to shake his hand if they want??? You can't use every single thing against him, maybe he had good reason to be there??? What if he was hated in the community and nobody would stand up for him, nobody would give him a character reference, would you say that proves that he was a bad guy as well? I think character references are kind of unfair as well, it's the evidence that should be looked at.
If the alleged "victim" is upset then that's something she's feeling inside herself. I don't think you should be able to say "you're upsetting me" and then that be used in evidence against someone. No, you have to deal with the facts, to deal with what actually happened. That's why I'm always against the idea of "victim impact statements", but it's just my opinion on the matter.
Reply With Quote
