Concerning Rape Case Ruling

[msj]

My reference to that one text is in response to others rather foolish reference to a certain text by the victim.

It was not intended to mean that only the context of that one text was the entire means for the judgement.

No, that would require reading the judgement which, since no one here seems interested in informing themselves of it, I'm not going to waste my time trying to discuss it.

[Scott Mayers]

My reference to that one text is in response to others rather foolish reference to a certain text by the victim.

It was not intended to mean that only the context of that one text was the entire means for the judgement.

No, that would require reading the judgement which, since no one here seems interested in informing themselves of it, I'm not going to waste my time trying to discuss it.

I understand the judge's papers are books in themselves. So it is valid for others who wish to raise the evidence at issue do the work and point out the comments themselves to which others can argue for or against. From any quotes mentioned so far thought, nothing is validly capable of standing up against the criticism against this judge's ruling or to the rest of the case.

[-1=e^ipi]

The judge cannot be considered unbiased. Citing feminists that think all sex is rape, claiming in the past that "Marriage, in the legal sense only, is a purchase. The buyer is the man, who commits himself for the rest of his life to provide food, shelter, clothing and medical attention in return for... the exclusive use of his bride's vagina.", that law does not support women enough, etc. He's also been known to commit judicial misconduct in the past by altering transcripts.

Perhaps he wanted to be known as the noble chivalrous judge who protected womyn against the evil rape culture. After all, womyn are always innocent and men are always guilty.

We already know that courts are heavily biased against men, be it child custody, divorces or the sentencing gap (men have 62% longer sentences even after controlling for other factors http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002).I guess now they want to make it so that a woman's testimony counts for more than a man's; sort of like the opposite as in Sharia where a man's testimony counts for twice as much as a woman's.

[jacee]

It couldn't be any more clear that the court did not get it right. She had no evidence of any kind, whereas he had her written invitation for sex.

That's irrelevant.

She didn't want the variety of 'tea' he forced on her.

It's patently insane that anyone could ever be found guilty on any charge just because someone said they did something, especially when the physical evidence clearly points in the opposite direction.

Gee ... I wonder what he meant in his physical text message apologizing for getting carried away?

Was he sorry he forced the unwanted 'tea' down her throat?

.

[Scott Mayers]

If I offered 'tea' to a guest, they have as equal power to turn it down as I would to turn down their 'tea' too. Jacee, are women so meek and weak that they don't "own" their own power? Maybe you need a man to decide FOR you? You can't have it both ways. Either women are genetically too 'weak' to handle reality such that they need men to take on the power over them OR they are equal and deserve the power to 'own' their actions, including the responsibility to NOT drink 'tea' with assertiveness and clarity and where they 'fear' such a person, to walk out.

[jacee]

If I offered 'tea' to a guest, they have as equal power to turn it down as I would to turn down their 'tea' too. Jacee, are women so meek and weak that they don't "own" their own power? Maybe you need a man to decide FOR you? You can't have it both ways. Either women are genetically too 'weak' to handle reality such that they need men to take on the power over them OR they are equal and deserve the power to 'own' their actions, including the responsibility to NOT drink 'tea' with assertiveness and clarity and where they 'fear' such a person, to walk out.

You should just run that by a woman you respect.

Rapists can post on discussion boards too, and often do.

Edited August 8, 2016 by jacee

[Smoke]

I think they should just forget the lengthy trial and associated costs and just get jacee to provide a ruling. After all she "knows" what happened in this and many other rape cases.

[jacee]

I think they should just forget the lengthy trial and associated costs and just get jacee to provide a ruling. After all she "knows" what happened in this and many other rape cases.

The trial is over.

I do read the information I can find before commenting.

If you didn't even read enough to know that he was convicted at trial, shut up would be good.

Rapists can post on discussion boards too, and often do.

Edited August 8, 2016 by jacee

[-1=e^ipi]

She didn't want the variety of 'tea' he forced on her.

How do you know she did not consent to the sex? You don't.

You are trying to pretend, using your tea meme, that others in this thread are taking the position that they don't think a person can retract consent later on. That is a strawman argument. Rather, they are taking the position that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the guy was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Edited August 8, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Sure, and according to the judge there was a text written by Mr. Ururyar ("I am sorry things went as they did. I shouldn't have said and done some of the things I did. I was upset and felt wronged by you but that does not excuse my own mistakes.") that is pretty damning and seems to be an influence on the decision.

Oh, I don't know.

Maybe it would be a good idea to read the ruling and then discuss it: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj448/2016oncj448.html

Even when a guy admits to rape these people defend him. It's disgusting.

[cybercoma]

How do you know she did not consent to the sex? You don't.

Not only does she say she didn't consent, but he apologized for being angry at the relationship ending and getting carried away. You don't need to be a genius to piece that together. It is pretty disgusting that you'd excuse a rapist though. Keep fighting the "good" fight.

[Bryan]

That's irrelevant.

She didn't want the variety of 'tea' he forced on her.

Gee ... I wonder what he meant in his physical text message apologizing for getting carried away?

Was he sorry he forced the unwanted 'tea' down her throat?

.

That's the problem. His text leaves you to wonder, while her text leaves nothing to wonder -- she asked to have sex.

There is no evidence that she refused any tea. There is evidence that she ordered it.

[Smeelious]

That could mean a number of different things though.

The way I see it, the guy isn't innocent beyond reasonable doubt, but he's not guilty beyond reasonable doubt either.

I agree with you on this tbh.

At the same time...No rape case could ever be prosecuted under these conditions.

[Smeelious]

Not only does she say she didn't consent, but he apologized for being angry at the relationship ending and getting carried away. You don't need to be a genius to piece that together. It is pretty disgusting that you'd excuse a rapist though. Keep fighting the "good" fight.

On the flip side

He breaks up with her, she reports rape...2+2... (Honestly it bothers me even writing that, but it isn't outside the realm of possible)

[-1=e^ipi]

Not only does she say she didn't consent, but he apologized for being angry at the relationship ending and getting carried away. You don't need to be a genius to piece that together. It is pretty disgusting that you'd excuse a rapist though. Keep fighting the "good" fight.

Excuse? I'm saying that there is inadequate information.

[-1=e^ipi]

Cybercoma, if you want to argue the merits of moving towards a guilty until proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt system then I am open to that. However, please don't pretend it is the same thing as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[dre]

That's not that bad of an idea.

Problem is that lawyers will never allow it, because they are fearful of technologies that could result in less work for them.

I STRONGLY suspect that you could replace the whole criminal court system with polygraph tests, and the percentage of correct outcomes would actually go UP.

Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it's about 70 percent accurate," said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92847

Human run trials are so full of bias and emotion and misconduct, that I seriously doubt they exceed the range listed above in accuracy. I obviously have no evidence of that though.

I guess the problem with polygraphs is that sociopaths, etc would get off more because they are completely comfortable with what they have done, and can often like without any detectable physiological indicators.

Within 50 years ago, you would probably just be able to watch peoples memories on a big screen and know right away who did what and who didn't.

Edited August 8, 2016 by dre

[jacee]

Even when a guy admits to rape these people defend him. It's disgusting.

Rapists post online too, pushing their disgusting agenda.

.

Edited August 8, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

That's the problem. His text leaves you to wonder, while her text leaves nothing to wonder -- she asked to have sex.

There is no evidence that she refused any tea. There is evidence that she ordered it.

They had previously had consensual sex so she thought she wanted to have sex with him ... until he berated her (abuse) and jammed his penis down her throat (sexual assault).

Then he raped her.

She did not consent to abuse, sexual assault or rape.

.

[jacee]

Cybercoma, if you want to argue the merits of moving towards a guilty until proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt system then I am open to that. However, please don't pretend it is the same thing as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was convicted.

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

.

[jacee]

Problem is that lawyers will never allow it, because they are fearful of technologies that could result in less work for them.

I STRONGLY suspect that you could replace the whole criminal court system with polygraph tests, and the percentage of correct outcomes would actually go UP.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92847

Human run trials are so full of bias and emotion and misconduct, that I seriously doubt they exceed the range listed above in accuracy. I obviously have no evidence of that though.

I guess the problem with polygraphs is that sociopaths, etc would get off more because they are completely comfortable with what they have done, and can often [edit]lie without any detectable physiological indicators.

Within 50 years ago, you would probably just be able to watch peoples memories on a big screen and know right away who did what and who didn't.

DNA and lie detection hold great promise for simplifying justice. However, lie detection is not there yet as sociopaths are difficult to detect: To them the truth that they are comfortable with is whatever they choose it to be. Telling a truth that incriminated them would cause the detectable physical anxiety that lying does in normal people.

Still there is promise, IF

we can prevent the sociopath predator billionaires who currently run the world from controlling and manipulating that to their advantage.

As long as deception, manipulation and exploitation run the world, truth in justice is a dream.

.

[Argus]

He was convicted.

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

.

If the remarks of the Superior Court judge who granted him bail are anything to go on he will likely be granted a new trial.

[msj]

Even when a guy admits to rape these people defend him. It's disgusting.

I don't know if that is an admission or not. Well, legally. I think it was but that is my opinion of a guy who I think is a rapist but an opinion is a different thing than applying the standard of the law.

My point is that we have yet another thread on here discussing a legal case for which the people discussing it are not exactly well informed because they can't be bothered to even skim the ruling.

[Bryan]

My point is that we have yet another thread on here discussing a legal case for which the people discussing it are not exactly well informed because they can't be bothered to even skim the ruling.

If that's what you're getting from this discussion, I wonder if maybe you're doing too much skimming and not actually reading of this thread. The ruling itself is the problem. The evidence presented in court doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria that he claims it did. It was a political manifesto, not a proper legal ruling.

[msj]

Disagree with the ruling all you like.

But the least you can do is demonstrate you've read it rather than second hand MSM articles about it.

Which you haven't and you won't so no need to discuss any further.