Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yurt said:
see...this is yoiur problem....you never call out your side, but constantly whine about others not calling out the other side
Click to expand...

I call out "my own side" about a million times more than you do.

I don't do it when you command me to do it, no.
 
Speaking as a person who has never been a prosecutor and ONLY defended I have NEVER met a prosecutor that would not prosecute a case they thought they could win. NEVER NEVER NEVER. Now, if what I read about her saying she is not sure she said no, that she admitted she was naked from the waist up, that she admitted she and he were "bed mates" or fuck buddies, I could walk the accused EASILY. That evidence alone is more than enough to mold into reasonable doubt. IF all of that is true.
 
Yurt said:
translation: yurt's right and i still won't call out onceler despite saying i would

:)

hey man, you're the one that kept asking me for examples and when i give them...i'm seriously mental....now thats weird

don't want answers, don't ask for them
Click to expand...

No translations, no bollocks.

I actually think you are proper mental. I'm not joking and i'm not trying to be insulting. I genuinely think you have serious problems.

I think it's better if i just leave you be.
 
Onceler said:
So, just to sum up, the right-wing's very best defense for a guy who thought a woman saying "no" and passing out = "consent" is this:

"Clinton"
Click to expand...

Onceler said:
Why am I being asked to produce a link for something I didn't claim?

Yurt, I responded to you as best I could. The righties I was referring to - DY, ID and webbway - didn't say word one about the issue being presented. They brought up Clinton, or in webbway's case, tried to marginlize it because it was 5 years old.

Ergo, this was their "best defense" of this politicians behavior, which I still find deplorable. It's all they could come up with.

Again - you have a zero tolerance policy for this when it comes to lefties & Bush. A little consistency would be nice....
Click to expand...

really? yiou never claimed the DA said this equals consent and that others defended this? really...because that is exactly what you claimed above...let's see it again

defense for a guy who thought a woman saying "no" and passing out = "consent
Click to expand...

where did the DA say "no" and passing out = consent? and where did anyone defend that by saying:

"clinton"

where.....
 
Ice Dancer said:
If Bush were brought up to show the one sided hypocritical position of the thread starter it would be appropriate since Clinton was not mentioned as a defense.
Click to expand...

You could help your good friend's cause enormously by actually addressing the topic of whether or not you think consent was implied somehow in this case. I don't think you're intelligent enough to do so, however.....
 
Yurt said:
really? yiou never claimed the DA said this equals consent and that others defended this? really...because that is exactly what you claimed above...let's see it again



where did the DA say "no" and passing out = consent? and where did anyone defend that by saying:

"clinton"

where.....
Click to expand...

If he didn't think it was consent, he thought it was rape. And he'd take the case.

Or, he's just a wuss - whatever you want to go with.
 
charver said:
No translations, no bollocks.

I actually think you are proper mental. I'm not joking and i'm not trying to be insulting. I genuinely think you have serious problems.

I think it's better if i just leave you be.
Click to expand...

My very excellent friend & blood brother, I am in agreement 100%.
 
charver said:
No translations, no bollocks.

I actually think you are proper mental. I'm not joking and i'm not trying to be insulting. I genuinely think you have serious problems.

I think it's better if i just leave you be.
Click to expand...

and you think i take this board seriously?

you haven't met me...you've only seen a few of my posts and have had an issue with me on this one thread, refuse to keep your word....yet you somehow have the expertise to diagnose me with real world mental issues

you're right, its best you just leave me be...i wouldn't want to give you nightmares because i'm so mental

what a dumbass and what a sensitive cry baby...seriously, all you had to do was admit you have a hard on for me and that you refuse to call onceler out...but oh no...its yurts mental and i'm too scared to post with him

LOL....
 
And just so you all know, it is not common, but sometimes women cry rape when it didn't happen. Several years ago I worked on a case where an 18 year old high school senior that was accused of rape by a 17 year old class mate. Unknown to her, he recorded the entire act with a webcam from the corner of his room. He was charged and convicted of one count of child pornography (manufacturing) and will be a sexual offender that has to report for the rest of his life. She received NO PUNISHMENT for lying about the rape. She should have been prosecuted. She wasn't.
 
Onceler said:
If he didn't think it was consent, he thought it was rape. And he'd take the case.

Or, he's just a wuss - whatever you want to go with.
Click to expand...

i guess this is the best we'll get on onceler admitting he lie and fucked up

he didn't take the case because he felt he couldn't prove it

he never said it equaled consent and no one ever defended him saying that

next
 
Onceler said:
You could help your good friend's cause enormously by actually addressing the topic of whether or not you think consent was implied somehow in this case. I don't think you're intelligent enough to do so, however.....
Click to expand...

I am not trying to help my good friends case; he has done that well enough all by his self. You do not get to make the rules about which post I can comment on nor do you get to make false claims like "Clinton was brought up as a defense" without getting called on it...
 
Socrtease said:
And just so you all know, it is not common, but sometimes women cry rape when it didn't happen. Several years ago I worked on a case where an 18 year old high school senior that was accused of rape by a 17 year old class mate. Unknown to her, he recorded the entire act with a webcam from the corner of his room. He was charged and convicted of one count of child pornography (manufacturing) and will be a sexual offender that has to report for the rest of his life. She received NO PUNISHMENT for lying about the rape. She should have been prosecuted. She wasn't.
Click to expand...

do you think the DA said he thought "no" and passing out equals consent?
 
Ice Dancer said:
I am not trying to help my good friends case; he has done that well enough all by his self. You do not get to make the rules about which post I can comment on nor do you get to make false claims like "Clinton was brought up as a defense" without getting called on it...
Click to expand...

If he wasn't brought up as a defense...why was he brought up, again?
 
Yurt said:
do you think the DA said he thought "no" and passing out equals consent?
Click to expand...
No. From what I have read about her statements they did not think they could get the case to "beyond a reasonable doubt". Like it or not that is the duty of the DA. If they don't think they can get a case to "beyond a reasonable doubt" ethically they should not prosecute the case. She said to the police, if the transcript is accurate, that she was not sure she said no. If she was conscious when the act began, consented to it, but then passed out after, I don't think you could get a jury to convict. Especially when she admitted they were fuck buddies. This is not about the judgment of the DA, this is about deciding if a jury would convict. IF all this is true, I would put the chance at acquittal at greater than 85%.
 
Onceler said:
Can't just give me a line or 2, eh?

There really isn't any other reason to bring up Clinton. Sorry 'bout that.....
Click to expand...

I could, and in fact already have in previous posts, but what your response here translates into is equal to not really being intellectually honest or that you are just too stupid, or both...take your pick.
 
Socrtease said:
No. From what I have read about her statements they did not think they could get the case to "beyond a reasonable doubt". Like it or not that is the duty of the DA. If they don't think they can get a case to "beyond a reasonable doubt" ethically they should not prosecute the case. She said to the police, if the transcript is accurate, that she was not sure she said no. If she was conscious when the act began, consented to it, but then passed out after, I don't think you could get a jury to convict. Especially when she admitted they were fuck buddies. This is not about the judgment of the DA, this is about deciding if a jury would convict. IF all this is true, I would put the chance at acquittal at greater than 85%.
Click to expand...

i agree and that is what i don't understand about the OP's comments and other comments that the DA said this equaled consent
 
Yurt said:
i agree and that is what i don't understand about the OP's comments and other comments that the DA said this equaled consent
Click to expand...


Silly.

Awww shucks. Surely you can see it was just yet another opportunity in the long line of opportunities to make it AWL about her and her views.

Now get back in there and be ready to get your bawls handed to you!

No whining!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top