Queen Elizabeth II died today at Balmoral
(www.bbc.co.uk)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (98)
sorted by:
Dude, this is a HUGE gap in your knowledge.
You're complaining about the possibility of "emotional abuse" in one state being used to justify lethal force in self-defense, at least when you are talking about the US.
In Spain, everything is worse, at every level, in every part of the country. It's not even close. Fucking Christ, the leading cause of death for men is suicide. This is because of their infamous "Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence Law". Remember Title IX Tribunals? Remember The Duluth Model? Remember Family Court? Put them all together in one legal system and amp it up to 11, and that's what Spain has.
On what evidence do you say that it was 'consensual'? Legally minded as you are, you'd surely have stated 'not demonstrated to be non-consensual' if you did not think that the contrary case had been established.
While being mindful that it is propaganda, it seems far more likely to me that it was rape than not.
This is so 'comic book villain'-tier that I almost think that they made it up. But if true, even though it was not talking about this incident, they most certainly are not 'innocent' - even if this particular case was not demonstrated.
I decided not to be pedantic because I was tired?
Her claim was that even though she wanted to have sex with them, hit on them, and followed them into a room, only once they had sex did she become "frozen with fear". That's her claim. According to the piece that is arguing from a position of support for her. I don't buy that shit for a second.
Innocent against the crime alleged. Last time I saw a claim as flimsy as this it the group of men weren't called a "wolf pack" but the "Scottsboro Boys". They got sentenced to death... 3 times... and eventually got acquitted.
Ah, well that does make a lot more sense.
I don't think it's pedantry though. It's the difference between "proven not to be crooks" and "not proven to be crooks". It's of crucial importance.
The piece was too boring and disturbing at the same time for me. I didn't get the "she wanted to have sex with them" part. I did read how unlikely it was for a young girl to approach five men and say that she wanted to have sex with her, which is true enough, but still only circumstantial.
OK, so they're attempted rapists or people who wanted to rape, but they just didn't rape this girl - or weren't proven to have done so?
You aren't going to night club scenes in hive cities where this shit isn't even almost abnormal. A lot of young women in those scenes are absolute fucking slags.
Due Process is a bitch, but that's why we have it.