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.
My reason just explains the logic behind that. It doesn't mean that your man was physically unable to speak.
If, somehow, there was an inexperienced Guard and they interviewed him, a suspect would likely to have been able to answer any questions but would then try to have that evidence thrown out later.
Lets suppose there is a scenario like the man who kidnapped and killed the girl and was shot by the police. If they had captured him and he was after having a few drinks, and they thought that the girl was still alive, they might have still tried to interview him immediately to ascertain where she was. But if what they want is usuable evidence for court, then they wouldn't question him.
Ah I'm with you now. Apologies.
Probably true to some extend.
What I mean is that you have no idea how long they left her “unattended” for. For all you know they might have gone off to get a drink to sober her up. There is nothing to suggest that she was just abandoned.
Still has nothing to do with what the offender in this case did to her.
Just another way to say its everyone else's fault except the man, who definitely did not sexually assault her because nobody will link the videos.
This thread is vile.
Absolutely. It's a horrible story and has brought out the worst of people on both sides.
The evidence we have is minimal and the reporting is bordering on comical.
Let's just hope that the evidence provided to the jury was more convincing and definitive than the clickbait headlines given to us rabble rousers.
And let's hope all involved get what they deserve.
Mod - Give it a rest, it's not happening and if anyone were to post such a video they'd get a siteban very fast. Lets move on please.
Can you stop twisting my words please (again)? I simply said that it’s not fair to blame her friends for what happened. There is nothing to suggest they just left her on her own and took off.
Correct: he obviously accepted that he had initiated the encounter.
Her argument was that she was too drunk to consent.
If she had initiated the encounter, he could potentially argue that he too was too drunk to consent.
The crime of sexual assault revolves around the issue of whether the accused knew the other did not consent/was reckless as to whether they did not consent.
The accused could potentially have argued that he was unaware that she was not consenting - but (to avoid the repercussions otherwise), making yourself too intoxicated such that you are unable to assess whether the other party has consented or not obviously won't let you off the hook.
Frankly to me it does seem odd that the judge decided that she wasn't voluntarily extremely drunk.
However, it's not the judge who decides guilt.
Nope. Prisoners are treated fairly, given their rights and afforded all protection the law gives them.
IF you don't think so, perhaps you just have a grudge
If there is one thing we have learned, it's that women who are victims of sexual assault are lower down the food chain than illegal immigrants on here.
Lower than white illegal immigrants. A lot of the right wing racist types on here are also women hating incels so it makes sense how they act. You can bet if this guy was black the thread would be orders of magnitude bigger with calls for the deportation of all black people from Ireland and all that jazz
That's a shocking thing to say chief. Really bad form.
Just as well the court case is over with all the comments posted here.Who needs a court case or lawyers.
It's not about the result but the process. People are not 'defending an immigrant, lolz' but questioning what is supposed to be a fair, transparent process.
Bringing race and gender into this is truly reprehensible. There are some truly disgusting people out there that will politicize any story for their own purposes.
Was there anything that wasn't fair and transparent?
Agree race has nothing to do with it.
This is absolutely typical though. There are people here who are questioning the process this scumbag received without being in the courtroom and didn’t hear a shred of evidence.
What you read in the papers is only a snippet of what goes on daily in a trial.
Sexual assault is a hard crime to prove. She wasn’t the one who made the complaint to Gardai, he was caught by bouncers in the act of sexually assaulting someone who wasn’t in any way able to provide consent, and they called the guards. Gardai/DPP reviewed the evidence (witnesses, CCTV, videos those horrible women took, etc), charged him and he was found guilty unanimously.
Your basis for ‘questioning what is supposed to be a fair and transparent process’ is that you weren’t in the courtroom to hear all of the evidence.
There are plenty of threads here about people who get lenient sentences and giving out about judges, questioning the legal system, implying it’s corrupt etc, but low and behold someone actually gets the sentence they deserve and the same remarks from the same people are showing up but this time because they haven’t the first clue about the case and they ‘don’t know what the man did wrong’.
There is something truly ‘off’ about the contents of this post. Using an horrific scenario to take an unsubstantiated, waspish swipe at posters who hold a contrary opinion.
It’s incredibly low, but is unfortunately a reflection of some of the disturbed minds that exist behind the anonymous aliases on Boards.
On the contrary, I think that if convicted was a black African illegal immigrant he would not be getting half the leeway this guy is getting from some here.
This thread has truly jumped the shark.
Agreed. That girl’s life has been changed forever.
Some posters can’t help but shoehorn in their own views on an entirely different topic.
Pretty disturbing and unfortunately symptomatic of why engagement with Boards is dropping like a stone.
I don't see many or maybe even any posts that suggest that this was an incorrect judgement, I think a lot of it is genuine curiosity as to how these cases work. I'm sure a lot of men wonder, considering how alcoholic our culture is, if they need to change their sexual habits to stay in line with the law. Obviously noone is suggesting you can do what this man did. The situation around consent does not seem straightforward however, when neither party can consent due to intoxication. And I believe a lot of these posts are trying to get at this topic, if two drunk people have sex and one reports an assault to the police, the other can be found guilty by virtue of the fact that they did not report the assault.
This has nothing to do with this case where the assault was obvious but I can see why people are curious about the law regarding consent.
No, it's not the case that one drunk person is found guilty just because the other one reports it.
You believe a family member literally changed sex. I wouldn't get on any high horse if I was you!
Stalker much? Not that it matters, but if my relation wants to be referred to as a green martian eating lizard, then that's what I'll refer to them as.
Also, when it comes to laws and courts and unfortunately, victims, I dare say I have a little bit more experience then a lot of posters on here. Not that you need to be an expert to realise that victims are not to blame for anything, or that you don't have sex with people who cannot consent.
Although those basic normal behaviours seem to be beyond a lot of posters.
'And sometimes victims do have to accept some sort of blame'
Maybe buy a dictionary
FFS, do you find comprehension difficult?
What have I not comprehended. You told me to get a dictionary, I got one, nothing in the definition is contrary to what I posted.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e28477cb8381b089d86bb2f8d128369.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
