Drunken man and woman commit lewd public acts. No violence, no coercion. The guy gets six years for sexual assault and she gets off scot free. Something badly wrong here.
Ok will bite. Hadnt realised he was intoxicated too. From other reports it appeared he was a sober predator looking for an intoxicated woman.
Yes the guards deemed he was too intoxicated to be interviewed.
Rape is rape .
He wasn't convicted of rape.
There does seem to be something very odd about this.
I am sure there has to be more to it than this.
If not, then this is a shocking judgement.
He's a rapist ,
Hopefully being kicked back to Georgia when he finishes his sentence
Illegal immigrant yes, rapist no.
He was convicted by a jury - I'd love to see a transcript of the case presented to them.
From reading the article I fail to see what he did wrong.
And why it matters that he is a karate champion.
Me too. From the details in the article, I can't see how they came to that verdict. But as I said, there must be more to it. I hope so anyway.
Young lady gave account this morning on radio. Whilst not explicitly stated, there was a strong inference that her drink was spiked by somebody. That her actions were completely out of the norm and she had no actual recollection of what happened. That four bouncers saw what was going down and rescued her. That others (women?) did see what was happening and instead of intervening, took out their phones and took video. That CCTV showed what happened outside the club. Fair dues to the bouncers and yer man is no loss at all.
He was convicted by a jury, and rapes are hard to convict. He was followed by the bouncers supposedly who found him on top of her.
I'm in no way defending the guy. He is an illegal immigrant who shouldn't have been here anyway.
I'm just saying on the face of the article, it doesn't seem so clear cut. I hope it was. I am well aware I'm not privy to all the information.
Sounds like the he said she said bullshit, but the question is why one side was deemed more reliable.
On a side note: Here we go with another unverified spiking story again…
The inference of spiking is completely unsubstantiated. Her claim that she cannot recollect what happened cannot be verified. She admits to getting loaded up before heading out and then hitting shots when she got to the place. She drank more than she could handle and lost control of her inhibitions. She gave no indication that she was in distress. Bouncers intervened on their own initiative. I don't see why she is any more of a loss than he is.
He wasn't convicted of rape. He was convicted of the lesser crime of sexual assault. Being on top of another person is a common feature of consensual sexual activity.
"He was convicted by a jury - I'd love to see a transcript of the case presented to them"
Your post above - just how do you know what is substantiated and unsubstantiated evidence???????????? Given you haven't seen the details..
So, because she got drunk, it's her own fault she got assaulted?
Way to go on the victim blaming
I'm going on the basis of newspaper reports - in the articles I have seen spiking is not reported. This inference is just another attack on the man's character.
Seems to me that the court fell for a good girl led astray by illegal immigrant sob story.
No, clearly that was not the case.
These threads are always an eye opener as to beliefs of posters. It's amazing how many posters seem to think it's ok to have sex with women who cannot consent 🙄
Difficult to tell with limited information.
The case is nothing but embarrassing actually. People on either side were intoxicated, but accused each other.
If both parties are drunk and consent to sexual activity while intoxicated, is that ok?
Or are women exempt from liability?
What defines a woman?
Your assertion that people think it's ok to have non consensual sex with a woman is bollocks. Nobody said that.
She was cogent enough to perform oral sex on him. What is the test that shows you have taken enough alcohol that you are no longer responsible for your own sexual promiscuity. We saw something similar with the rugby players up north and they were acquitted
also a common feature of non-consensual sexual activity when the person on the bottom is in no state to give consent.
what does this first question have to do with this case? Nothing.
second question, I'm not even sure you understand, are you asking if women are exempt from liability when they are sexually assaulted by someone? Strange.
What defines a woman? Are you trying to make this into a trans argument? Why does everything come back to trans issues with you?
I then said it's 'amazing how many posters think it's ok to have sex with a woman who cannot consent' which it is, every time one of these type of threads appear. Are you offended on behalf of those posters or something?
I think you need to attend consent classes 🙄
Just another "new" edgelord account
So if the woman is intoxicated she cannot consent, but does this also not apply to a man if they are also intoxicated? What if it is the woman who initiated the act of sex whilst intoxicated?
There are some amount of vile scumbags on here trying to make excuses for this bastard.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/efd3dd9d0bb9a4718dd25ad32419f424.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
