I'm not sure why you're continuing to try and argue my intent or state of mind on the issue other than to argue for its own sake. I told you my perspective on the issue, you are welcome to take it or leave it.
I guess this is one of those cases where if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, huh?
As long as you learned something and won't rush to judgment in the future.
Please read my previous post. You seem to have access to all of the testimony that will be made in this case rather than the three sentences quoted in the OP.
I think this is where I will drop out of this. If you people think someone would rather be raped than have to actually have to utter a word a second time, you are out of your fucking minds. You can call me all the names in the world if you want, but that just defies all logic.
So she wasn't legally raped in PA, correct?
Wakeup call to people, read your local state laws, unwanted sex isn't always rape!
That's right. Important to know your local rape laws before getting into bed with ambivalent women.
Even easier, don't be an asshole...
To prepare for the time when liberals make it so women can legally punish men for being assholes? Which judging based on this thread is how they really want to define rape.
Even easier, don't be an asshole...
We can only base opinion on the evidence provided.
And, if you take the woman's statements at face value, he is guilty of at least sexual assault.
This is 100% wrong. People are always assumed innocent until proven guilty.
No one should be assumed guilty, without having any say or ability to defend themselves. Yet so many here condemn this man without any real evidence, because her words alone are not evidence.
No one should be assumed guilty, without having any say or ability to defend themselves. Yet so many here condemn this man without any real evidence, because her words alone are not evidence.
You thought I responded to your post without reading it? You're saying that her full testimony might include details that are not just in addition to what her statement but completely contradicting it. And I'm saying that's utter bullshit. I mean, she could end up doing that, but you've got no reason to even consider that she will.
I'm saying that all we have are the words quoted in the OP. You seem to be assuming that those three sentences are everything she said. And you seem to be assuming that she hasn't already included additional information in her statement to police that provides a context to those three sentences. Finally, the hypothetical contextual statement I imagined in no way contradicts the three sentences she is quoted as having said.
Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process. Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal preponderance of the evidence standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female survivors note the language of prejudgment.
Nehalem Non-sequitar is outdoing himself in this thread.
It's a feast of attacks on women, feminists, and liberals for him, he's spaffing at the mouth.
In law, not in popular culture, or "in life," where apparently many or most people don't buy into such a dated concept, at least when it comes to sexual assault.
Even easier, don't be an asshole...
This.
It's a whole lot harder to be accused of assault if you don't pressure reluctant women to sleep with you.
Actually, this is quite true. I'm not convicting anyone of a crime, thus my assumption of guilt has a much lower bar, similar to how a civil case usually only requires a preponderance of evidence.
If I was serving on a jury (and I have), not only would I by judging more carefully, I would also be provided with a ton more data about the entire situation.
As it is, based on the scanty evidence provided, and the fact that this is merely a discussion on a forum, I have no problem saying that I feel the guy was guilty of sexual assault.