How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
He : "Oh God I want meatballs so bad."
She : "Yeah meatballs would be nice, I want your meatballs in my mouth."
He : My place?
She : Sure.
Police complaint :
She : "He forcefully fed me, I never talked about wanting to eat with him!"
He : "She came to my place and we had dinner. Here are text messages leading up to that."
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
Police complaint :
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I'm confused that it's causing such distress.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.