Basil3 wrote: » This really got me thinking. We have a member of our family around the age you were. I'd be shocked if she was raped and got up the courage to report to the guards but didn't tell us (or at least her Mum) as well. If the guards essentially told her to feck off, we would seriously kick up a stink. You had no support whatsoever? You just kept it to yourself?
seamus wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » We don't know if she was raped or not. We know that it couldn't be proven. Which means there was no rape. I don't know where you get the idea that the findings of the jury mean the rape categorically 'didn't happen'. No legal professional would put it in those words. The incident happened. The individuals involved engaged in sex, in which the matter of consent was questionable. But for all social and legal purposes, a rape did not occur. That's the point. Or to put it another way - if you say, "She was raped, but it can't be proven", then what you're doing is undermining the court. A finding of fact by a court that a rape occurred - in this instance - also requires that the accused is found guilty.
irishrebe wrote: » We don't know if she was raped or not. We know that it couldn't be proven.
I don't know where you get the idea that the findings of the jury mean the rape categorically 'didn't happen'. No legal professional would put it in those words.
markodaly wrote: » We are going to have wall to wall coverage now on how the justice system is some sort of woman hating creation of the patriarchy.
irishrebe wrote: » I didn't say 'she was raped, but it can't be proven'. I said that you cannot categorically state that she wasn't raped or that 'no rape happened'. You are mistaken there. Do you have a legal background?
seamus wrote: » You cannot say, "The court found them not guilty of rape, but that doesn't mean they didn't rape her", unless you have chosen to disregard the entire purpose of the court system. "Rape" is a specific legal term.
mayolady14 wrote: » yourdeadwright wrote: » Well if you don't report it your part of the problem .,Your getting people on both extremes here its the internet after all,The right road was taken and the evidence was presented and the guys where found not guilty, I'm not sure what more people want, ? Do we return to the stone ages and stone people without evidence as they might be guilty ?You say things need to change ,what exactly would you like changed what happened in this case on the law side of things that should be changed ?It seems some people are up in arms as they did not get the verdict they wanted, even if the law took it course , If the guys where found guilty in the court we'd all have to accept that two, I reported it. Wasn’t believed by a female guard. No follow up. He still plays football for Galway and I have PTSD. No one is suggesting we stone anyone. But we have a serious problem with believing and supporting rape victims in this country. Forget the trial and the verdict for a second. The way this woman is being spoken about. That’s why I told my story on this post. Because if it had gone to trial, feck all of ye would believe me either. I’d be a drunk slut who loved it.
yourdeadwright wrote: » Well if you don't report it your part of the problem .,Your getting people on both extremes here its the internet after all,The right road was taken and the evidence was presented and the guys where found not guilty, I'm not sure what more people want, ? Do we return to the stone ages and stone people without evidence as they might be guilty ?You say things need to change ,what exactly would you like changed what happened in this case on the law side of things that should be changed ?It seems some people are up in arms as they did not get the verdict they wanted, even if the law took it course , If the guys where found guilty in the court we'd all have to accept that two,
doylefe wrote: » The planned protests are basically slander on the men found innocent. I heard a snippet on the radio of Ruth Coppinger cheer-leading on the protests "in support of rape victims". Absolutely disgusting.
seamus wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » I didn't say 'she was raped, but it can't be proven'. I said that you cannot categorically state that she wasn't raped or that 'no rape happened'. You are mistaken there. Do you have a legal background? You can't prove a negative anyway. So it's impossible to prove something didn't happen. No, I don't have a legal background. The point is that if you think that a rape did actually happen, this can only be for two reasons: 1. Someone else was there that night who did rape her but wasn't accused of it 2. The men involved raped her, contrary to the finding of the court You cannot say, "The court found them not guilty of rape, but that doesn't mean they didn't rape her", unless you have chosen to disregard the entire purpose of the court system. "Rape" is a specific legal term. If the evidence fails to support a finding of rape, then the accused did not commit rape. You can throw in a million other terms here and say that she was injured, degraded, violated, humiliated. But "rape" is not one of those terms, because the evidence failed to support it.
Sidebaro wrote: » Tsipras wrote: Why would they say it? Why wouldn't they? Equally dumb question.
Tsipras wrote: Why would they say it?
mayolady14 wrote: » Considering I’m no law student, I don’t know exactly what would be the best way, but don’t you think that any crime with a conviction rate of 1-2% needs to be looked at seriously?
Tsipras wrote: » A woman Garda most likely from outside the county. No chance. Plenty of fantasists coming out of the woodwork now.
doylefe wrote: » T I heard a snippet on the radio of Ruth Coppinger cheer-leading on the protests "in support of rape victims".
wexie wrote: » doylefe wrote: » The planned protests are basically slander on the men found innocent. I heard a snippet on the radio of Ruth Coppinger cheer-leading on the protests "in support of rape victims". Absolutely disgusting. I'm somewhat curious quite how open to legal repercussions a lot of these people going on about 'rapists' etc. etc. are leaving themselves. I'd imagine that the four lads probably have little stomach for more legal proceedings at the moment but I wonder what the legal standpoint is on referring to people who have literally just been found not guilty of rape as rapists? Anyone?
irishrebe wrote: » Well, I do have a legal background. Someone being acquitted of a rape does not mean a rape didn't happen. You cannot put it in those terms, legally.
Tsipras wrote: A woman Garda most likely from outside the county. No chance. Plenty of fantasists coming out of the woodwork now.
yourdeadwright wrote: » Again as I said you get both extremes here, You have people talking nonsense about the women (wrongly) but you also have people talking **** about the lads (no where found not guilty) its the internet it happens, I'm not going to say I believe you or not as iv never meet you , no idea what happened to you or what didn't , But if you had a issue with a Garda you should have taken it to the Garda Ombudsman they are there for situation like that and should be used , Any member of the public has the right to be listened to and have a compliant investigated,
Mokuba wrote: » I really wish they would sue some of the people on twitter still calling them rapists. People think they can say whatever they like and get away with it.
Omackeral wrote: » The good thing about this #IBELIEVEHER thing and notifications about these solidarity marches is that you can use it to hide any eejit on your Facebook feed. It's a decent idiot filter.
Assetbacked wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Well, I do have a legal background. Someone being acquitted of a rape does not mean a rape didn't happen. You cannot put it in those terms, legally. Yeah, but it also doesn't mean something definitely did happen.
seamus wrote: » You can't prove a negative anyway. So it's impossible to prove something didn't happen. No, I don't have a legal background. The point is that if you think that a rape did actually happen, this can only be for two reasons: 1. Someone else was there that night who did rape her but wasn't accused of it 2. The men involved raped her, contrary to the finding of the court You cannot say, "The court found them not guilty of rape, but that doesn't mean they didn't rape her", unless you have chosen to disregard the entire purpose of the court system. "Rape" is a specific legal term. If the evidence fails to support a finding of rape, then the accused did not commit rape. And where you have four people in a room having sex, it is not possible that one of those people has been raped, but none of the other 3 committed rape. If none of them committed rape, then the fourth person was not raped. You can throw in a million other terms here and say that she was injured, degraded, violated, humiliated. But "rape" is not one of those terms, because the evidence failed to support it.
mayolady14 wrote: » And men think they can rape and get away with it. Because they do. 98% of them.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
