Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Bagrat Kudzievi

Options
2456713

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 332 ✭✭MarkEadie


    Did she perform oral sex? I didn't read that anywhere. One thing that jumped out at me was the guy was deemed too drunk to be interviewed afterward so he must have been pretty out of it. There were also a group of girls recording it. If there was a clear case of non consensual sex like the guy forcing himself on her or being violent or her appearing to not consent then would a group of bystanders just stand there and watch? Would they then start recording it? The natural inclination would be to help or get help. Did we even get the guys side of the story? I didn't hear it at all in any articles or coverage. I did hear about him being an illegal immigrant and karate champion though. I'd like to have a lot more information like the defense that he mounted before forming a solid opinion. I do sympathise with the girl. Maybe we just don't have the information that the jury had and if we had it we would conclude as they did but I do wish that information was available.



  • Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If both parties were intoxicated, which they were in this case, consent could not be given by either party.

    Is it your belief that it is right that a drunken man who genuinely remembers he received consent from a drunken woman, should be liable for prosecution? Is the drunken woman not liable for prosecution too?

    If that is your position then, and only then does my third question become relevant.

    In this case however, as I have said previously, I'm fairly certain there had to have been more damning evidence submitted in order for a jury to reach this verdict



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    It was widely reported that the Gardaí took oral swabs which indicates oral sex.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    Please educate me - at exactly what point when a drunken horny woman comes onto me at a bar (or a party for that matter) is it illegal for me to engage in sexual activity with her?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    I'd agree if she was lying there comatose but she had been engaged in oral sex prior to that and was filmed by bystanders who didn't see any need to intervene.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    I presume you mean I'm being deliberately provocative which I'm not. I genuinely think this guy has got a raw deal from a legal system which we all live under.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,815 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Wow....classy...he was found guilty.

    He literally carried her away when interrupted to continue....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    "Too drunk to consent" and "too drunk to object" are quite consistent. If she was drunk, the fact that she was not offering any resistance is not any kind of evidence of consent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    Yes I'm questioning the validity of a conviction which is one of the strengths of our legal system.

    Yes he did carry her but no indication was given that she either resisted this or was too comatose not to consent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,412 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    At any point. It seems that intoxicated women can’t consent, while men somehow can.

    A convenient imbalance of justice that raging feminists do not want to consider.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think if this case was the other way around, it wouldn't have even gone to the court system.

    Whether we like to admit it or not, there is a prevailing culture where men are almost always assumed to be guilty or that something shadowy was going on with the man rather than the woman. That kind of bias will naturally infect the minds of any jury, no matter how objective you wish to be.

    The one thing we can definitely say for certain is that Kudzievi was an illegal immigrant and, yet again, shows how weak and spineless our border system is in this country that we cannot prevent this from occurring, let alone identify and remove these people when they do enter our country illegally.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus



    I think you're overlooking the point that at no point did Kudzievi ever deny that he was a consenting, and even enthusiastic, participant in all the sexual acts that occurred, or advance any claim that he was too drunk to consent. She did. That may be a difference that you are happy to ignore but, from a legal point of view that, rather than the gender of the parties, is pretty much the central issue.

    Nobody was charged with a sexual assault on Kudzievi because he never complained that anyone had sexually assaulted him.



  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,492 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Illegal immigrant raped a young girl and we have apologists for him here.


    You ought to be ashamed of yourselves



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    His migration status is irrelevant, however much some people like to salivate over it. We don't have different sexual offence laws for people according to their migration status.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,412 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    And conveniently she could claim with confidence that she had not consented, even though she could not even remember the events. Highly believable of course.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire



    The "too drunk to object" is an interesting point. At what point is that reached? My contention is that she still had the wherewithal to perform fellatio on the man. It is the type of act that requires proactivity on behalf of the woman and there is no indication that he was holding her head.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Of course it's highly believable. If she can't recall the events then it's highly likely that she was too drunk to consent.



  • Posts: 714 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    How can she claim these two mutually exclusive things? Is it that even if she consented she was deemed too drunk to have done so?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    It doesn't matter when the point of "too drunk to object" is reached; what matters is being too drunk to consent. My point is that, if the prosecution case is that the victim was too drunk to consent then no inference, one way or the other, can be drawn from the fact that people observing the encounter didn't see her offer any resistance. Wat they saw is entirely consistent with her being too drunk to consent. People who are too drunk to consent frequently offer no resistance; that is precisely what makes them attractive to predators.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    Where she can recall events or not is highly unverifiable.

    Either way we are still responsible for our actions whether we remember doing them or not.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,412 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    Well apparently the jury were to decide whether she had been too drunk to consent. Always good to let others decide on this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    It's not unverifiable at all. She can give evidence about what she does or doesn't remember, obviously, and the reliability of that evidence can be tested with evidence from others about her behaviour and demeanour at the time of the events and in the aftermath.

    Her lack of consent had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury. Evidently, it was. Your doubts are based on a seven-paragraph newspaper report of the judge's summary of the evidence, delivered at the sentencing hearing. Maybe the jury have a better handle on this than you do?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    He is being described as a predator but it was reported that it was her who sat down beside him at the bar.

    I don't know what the bystanders saw or didn't see - all that was reported is that they videoed it and didn't intervene. Their lack of intervention can be interpreted in different ways. Either is was the 'bystander effect' or there was no indication that the woman was being assaulted.

    If you were to see a woman performing oral sex on the street at night outside a bar it would be a reasonable assumption that she is doing it willingly.

    I remember the Swedish House Mafia concert where a female was recorded performing oral sex at the concert. I don't believe any case of sexual assault was brought against the male in that instance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    It's not irrelevant. If we'd better enforcement he's more unlikely to have been here in the first place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    Yes he might have been spared the white knights and the puritanical court.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    Or, as you are forgetting, a women would have been less likely to be sexually assaulted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    Maybe the jury have a better handle on this, maybe they don't. Courts and juries can only make decisions on how well the cases are presented to them. I can only go on what's available to me in the papers and on the basis of that he got a raw deal.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Boards current affairs right on virtue signallers now defending a white illegal immigrant convicted of raping a woman.


    Fuckin hell this place is a cesspool.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    It’s so see-through. All the information heard before a judge and jury and the legal experts here think they know all the details despite none of them being in the room to hear the evidence.

    Security followed him after he tried to bring her away and pulled him off her. They were there and thought something was amiss. But no, the lads on boards know more than them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,367 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    your conclusion should be that you don't assault women who are in no fit state to consent but you do you.



Advertisement
Advertisement