Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dejarma

Accused of rape= what does that mean exactly?

61 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dejarma
10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You keep moving the goal posts.

In your EG1 you clearly state it is the female 'claiming rape'; and, the male is on trial.

it's not clear is it, Sherlock!? if it were clear then there wouldn't be a case, would there, Sherlock!?

i've added another spanner into the works regarding your:

Quote

and eg1 is very likely rape.

comment as a possibility..............

Edited by Dejarma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

it's not clear is it, Sherlock!? if it were clear then there wouldn't be a case, would there, Sherlock!?

 

 

On 1/17/2019 at 9:24 AM, garth said:

I also love the film that Truffaut directed himself, "Fahrenheit 451". He does a Hitchcock and appears in briefly in one scene.

You said:

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

...

The woman (the next day) thinks: 'oh dam what have I done' realizing in the heat of the moment she had sex with this man. 

Feels disgusted with herself & decides to claim rape= that's why she had sex because it was rape=  a subconscious way of justifying it? Was she forced? Well there's the problem= who knows? The man is put in front of a jury...

...

1

How can, what you wrote, be interpreted any other way than - female=victim * male=accused?

5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

i've added another spanner into the works regarding your:

comment as a possibility..............

1

The differing genitalia of the genders may raise questions to be tested in court.

You would be far better served using Google.

Quote

'Can Women Rape Men?' Is a Surprisingly Controversial Question

Under British law, rape can technically only be perpetrated by a man – a problem that hasn't been helped by MRAs using the issue to demonise women.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/j5n9yy/can-women-rape-men-is-a-surprisingly-controversial-question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

How can, what you wrote, be interpreted any other way than - female=victim * male=accused?

that's for the court to decide= is it not? i put forward a scenario.. a scenario a jury would be faced with.....

thanks for confirming the whole point of this thread= well done ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

that's for the court to decide= is it not? i put forward a scenario.. a scenario a jury would be faced with.....

thanks for confirming the whole point of this thread= well done ;)

Have a look at what you wrote in the in EG1 of the OP.  You said the female was "claiming rape". You said the male was before a jury.

That implies police have charged the male based on the female's complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Have a look at what you wrote in the in EG1 of the OP.  You said the female was "claiming rape". You said the male was before a jury.

That implies police have charged the male based on the female's complaint.

sorry you've lost me= i don't get your point.... i'm old so maybe you need to consider that;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

sorry you've lost me= i don't get your point.... i'm old so maybe you need to consider that;)

Phew!

In post #28 you assert that I have confirmed the point of this thread - whatever that may be.

You proposed the hypothetical where a male is on trial for raping a female.  You subsequently propose the court decides who the victim and accused are.  A court determines whether, or not, accused is guilty.

Explain the point you are trying to make in your OP and post #28.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Phew!

In post #28 you assert that I have confirmed the point of this thread - whatever that may be.

You proposed the hypothetical where a male is on trial for raping a female.  You subsequently propose the court decides who the victim and accused are.  A court determines whether, or not, accused is guilty.

Explain the point you are trying to make in your OP and post #28.

your words:

Quote

 and eg1 is very likely rape.

no_it_is_not =in my opinion

why is it likely?= in your opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

This is a legal minefield, and harbour-side mansions are funded from the argumentation by lawyers in courtrooms about such matters.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

your words:

no_it_is_not =in my opinion

why is it likely?= in your opinion

It's likely based on what you said

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

alcohol is not an added complication= alcohol will be the reason why situation 1 happened in the first place <more than likely> ... 

...

 

Here, do you mean that-  if there were no alcohol, no (consensual) sex would have occurred?  

Was the woman impaired to such an extent she couldn't give consent?

Do you understand now why I say alcohol complicates the matter and necessitates more answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

This is a legal minefield, and harbour-side mansions are funded from the argumentation by lawyers in courtrooms about such matters.

That's what I tried to say on page one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That's what I tried to say on page one!

I missed seeing it. Where would lawyers be if everything was cut-and-dried. Answer, living in cheaper accomodation.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's likely based on what you said

Here, do you mean that-  if there were no alcohol, no (consensual) sex would have occurred?  

Was the woman impaired to such an extent she couldn't give consent?

Do you understand now why I say alcohol complicates the matter and necessitates more answers?

do i understand??? err hmm let me think?

what part of: 'alcohol is not a complication= it's the reason the situation occurred in the first place' do you not get!? you are now fascinating me

hmm, let's see what other members think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

do i understand??? err hmm let me think?

what part of: 'alcohol is not a complication= it's the reason the situation occurred in the first place' do you not get!? you are now fascinating me

hmm, let's see what other members think

OK, so you assert alcohol was the reason that sex occurred. So was the victim impaired by alcohol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
Just now, Golden Duck said:

OK, so you assert alcohol was the reason that sex occurred. So was the victim impaired by alcohol?

who's the victim??=

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I missed seeing it. Where would lawyers be if everything was cut-and-dried. Answer, living in cheaper accomodation.

Speaking of clever lawyers...

If this thread was inspired by the Gillette thread - here's proof that all society doesn't accept anti-social behaviour.

Quote

The recent decision by the ACT magistrate, Shane Madden, to acquit Canberra Raiders rugby league player Noa Nadruku of two assault charges has not only provoked community outrage, it has also raised some important legal and social issues for federal, state and territory governments and for local communities.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:"chamber/hansards/1997-10-29/0055";src1=sm1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

who's the victim??=

Huh!

What did you state in the OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
Just now, Golden Duck said:

Huh!

What did you state in the OP?

i did not state anyone in particular as being a victim.. i put forward a scenario as a court of law would see it!! sooo who is the victim in eg1??

according to you it's the man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

i did not state anyone in particular as being a victim.. i put forward a scenario as a court of law would see it!! sooo who is the victim in eg1??

according to you it's the man

Maybe that's what's confusing you! You don't remember what you wrote. See below bolding and colouring mine

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

Example 1: a man meets a woman at a nightclub...

The drinks are flowing, they get on great & end up having sex...

The woman (the next day) thinks: 'oh dam what have I done' realizing in the heat of the moment she had sex with this man. 

Feels disgusted with herself & decides to claim rape= that's why she had sex because it was rape=  a subconscious way of justifying it? Was she forced? Well there's the problem= who knows? The man is put in front of a jury...

...

1

You state the female "decides to claim rape." And, "the man is put in front of a jury."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Maybe that's what's confusing you! You don't remember what you wrote. See below bolding and colouring mine

You state the female "decides to claim rape." And, "the man is put in front of a jury."

nope== you've completely lost me there so= i've no idea how to reply to that

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
8 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

nope== you've completely lost me there so= i've no idea how to reply to that

Mate, you wrote it in the OP!!!

What do you mean when you say... Feels disgusted with herself & decides to claim rape ? Per the below

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

...

Feels disgusted with herself & decides to claim rape

...

 

What do you mean when you say...The man is put in front of a jury ? Per the below

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

...The man is put in front of a jury...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Mate, you wrote it in the OP!!!

What do you mean when you say... Feels disgusted with herself & decides to claim rape ? Per the below

What do you mean when you say...The man is put in front of a jury ? Per the below

 

what part of= <how the court sees it> do you not get?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

what part of= <how the court sees it> do you not get?

 

Like I said before the court determines guilt.  You wrote the man is in front of a jury.  Therefore, he's been charged and is defending himself.

Explain what you meant in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

Explain what you meant in the OP.

 

no- i'm going haggis hunting now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos Allende

Dejarma I get the impression you're trying to solicit a wholesale dismissal of all rape cases where the victim has been in the vicinity of alcohol while on a night out.

Well, yes. Golden Duck notwithstanding, I don't see why the argument is contentious. Just as the whole idea of a jury is for them to weigh things in the balance using their societal experience. there's certain factors that, while not universally true in every case, the law itself can say, on balance, is probably true.

Most people who go nightclubbing, even with the benefit of the doubt, are either cougars (who should know better) or people under-thirty years old; therefore they've got less life experience to steer them clear of dodgy sexual partners. And dodgy sexual partners do exist; if you conceive of sex as a concept, you should conceive of men (and women) hounding you by any means necessary. The whole situation has got the similar vibe to the perennial debate over whether teenagers should be allowed to vote. Just ...no! And we shouldn't be ashamed to say no. There's no accounting for a lack of common-sensical life-experience.

Many years ago, I was working as a low-level security guard at a maximum security prison (in fact, one of the most advanced maximum security prisons ever built). Before my shift, a lovely lady sexed me up specifically to insert some metallic fibers into my bloodstream, which one of the prisoners then manipulated using his magnetic superpowers in an escape attempt. I could have made a fuss and owned up to what happened, but I didn't because I was ashamed and embarrassed. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

 

Many years ago, I was working as a low-level security guard at a maximum security prison (in fact, one of the most advanced maximum security prisons ever built). Before my shift, a lovely lady sexed me up specifically to insert some metallic fibers into my bloodstream, which one of the prisoners then manipulated using his magnetic superpowers in an escape attempt. I could have made a fuss and owned up to what happened, but I didn't because I was ashamed and embarrassed. 

  

The mind boggles, as they say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.