Aresholes con a jury, part two

[marty]

(2)Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B's genitalia by person A's penis,—


(a)without person B's consent to the connection; and


(b)without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.

so there you go.

[Hitcher]

So if person B takes it up the bottom, it's not "rape"?

[ManDownUnder]

For all of you bleeding hearts out there in La La Land, would you prefer living in a society where cops get sacked or jailed every time anybody makes a complaint against them?

Or for any man who is unfortunate to have a rape charge taken against them to be automatically jailed? ("society" actually holds them guilty anyway, whether they are or not, exactly as is happening with the (former) police officers in this latest case, so who is really the "victim" of "rape"?)

Hell no, and bling duly sent (despite the shite I'm giving you in another thread..).

It's a no win situation and the stakes are high. Someone's going to lose face and justice needs to be done. Severe amounts of justice needs to be done...

[terbang]

For all of you bleeding hearts out there in La La Land, would you prefer living in a society where cops get sacked or jailed every time anybody makes a complaint against them?

Or for any man who is unfortunate to have a rape charge taken against them to be automatically jailed? ("society" actually holds them guilty anyway, whether they are or not, exactly as is happening with the (former) police officers in this latest case, so who is really the "victim" of "rape"?)

What if Louise Nicholas and the other complainants against the "gentlemen" in question were actually making things up in order to progress an "agenda"? Who should decide who is innocent and who is guilty?

It's all very well being outraged, but consider the evidence put forward, as the juries were required to do in all of these cases, rather than leaping to speculative conclusions.

We're talking about running a system of justice, not TXT voting for Dancing with the Stars.

Though I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you or your family had been on the receiving end of Rickard and Co..!

[ManDownUnder]

Though I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you or your family had been on the receiving end of Rickard and Co..!

Quite possibly (if I may take that as a statement directed at me) which would - and rightly should - take me out of contention for jury service in that case... assuming their guilt of course.

[Damon]

We're talking about running a system of justice, not TXT voting for Dancing with the Stars.

Bling! Well put

[terbang]

Independant thought a distant memory huh..? These guys arn't clean and you know it. There is more to come for them too.

[Patrick]

No I do know some people in Murapara, where this thing first reared its ugly head..!

Chinese whispers perhaps... where were they for the court case????

[ManDownUnder]

Though I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you or your family had been on the receiving end of Rickard and Co..!

Independant thought a distant memory huh..?

According to you - yes.

And I agree...

[Patrick]

I can see it now Scumdog down on one knee in front of rickards "Please mister rickareds can you make me a inspector I always new you wernt guilty of rape, can I kiss your arse while i am down here Clint"


The unfortunate thing here Jim is that not everything was supprest so the case beame prejudiced in the other direction for example evidence to prove that they are arsehole thugs with a history of rape in there past is supprest but not the fact that the are or were Police officers which can lead a jury to think ok so if they are police they could not have done anything so hienous cos they are the good guys after all

Point 1... Trolling, I see....

Point 2... Rickards does not have any convictions... the other two do, and by association with the other two, he is automatically guilty?

[terbang]

so there you go.

Thanks Marty.
Now I see where the problem is, there has to be a penis involved..? How wrong could we have been here because the law doesn't mention anything about a police baton, only a penis..! Why would any avid follower of the law raise even an eyebrow over penetration by a police baton.. Cos its the law innit..?

[ManDownUnder]

Point 2... Rickards does not have any convictions... the other two do, and by association with the other two, he is automatically guilty?

Awww no fair - the KB firing squad's all loaded up and awaits orders. Don't bring common sense into it right at the last minute...

[Patrick]

It would be interesting to hear what Aurther Alan Thomas would have to say about that quote.

"Thanks for the $1 million???"

[Damon]

Thanks Marty.
Now I see where the problem is, there has to be a penis involved..? How wrong could we have been here because the law doesn't mention anything about a police baton, only a penis..! Why would any avid follower of the law raise even an eyebrow over penetration by a police baton.. Cos its the law innit..?

dude, calm down, that post was about the definition of rape being male-female, not male-male or female-male

[Hitcher]

Independant thought a distant memory huh..? These guys arn't clean and you know it. There is more to come for them too.

We know two of them are serving time for rape, so therefore can't be "clean". We know that Clint Rickard has not been convicted which, in the eyes of the law at least, means he is not "dirty".

As for there being more to come? I don't know what you think you know, but given that the Judge yesterday lifted all of the Court suppression orders, and given Clint Rickard's reaction, I reckon it would be a fair bet that there is nothing more "to come".