Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans
- Thread starter Mcface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It'll now be at least 63. Bring it on, tough guyHawkeye16 said:
I guess I'm part of those "13% retards" mentioned earlier, for agreeing with the Jury.
Why?
Because:
1) This is a blog post. I'm going to trust a jury, and a judge, more than one random internet blogger. Particularly off such a sensationalist site. Especially a blogger who was not present in court. Ie, I'm trusting the people that were there and heard the evidence more than someone exploiting sensationalist journalism and gullible reader-bases.
2) The jeans will not have been the only evidence/point of contention. The lass' story changed, which begins to cast doubts in the mind of the jury - particularly if the story changed in relation to the jeans (ie, were not ripped when they had been ripped off). But it is far more likely there is a whole host of other evidence/lack thereof which brought about the decision for the acquittal.
3) "Innocent until proven guilty", and "beyond reasonable doubt". As I said above, the jeans will not have been the only evidence in the acquittal. However without the transcripts of the defendant's statements, the complainant's accusations and version of events, then we do not know what relevance these jeans hold in relation to them - if the state of the jeans is totally contrary to the complainant's testimony, but not the defendant's, then it begins to get into the territory of "reasonable doubt", and thereby a guilty verdict is a perversion of justice.
Yet again I find myself sickened at some of the user-base on this site. What knee-jerk reactions and simple, base, misunderstandings of legal practice.
Everyone saying the decision was "stupid" and the jury are "retards" needs to think again. These 12 people will have been presented with evidence from both sides of the case, of which the jeans are likely to only be a small part (but possibly relevant, even if you don't think so, it all depends on each side's version of events). We are sitting here with only a blogger's rantings to give any insight to what went on in the courtroom - and said blogger was not even in court.
I'm not saying whether the man did rape the woman or not (physical indicators alone are not evidence of rape, it could just have been rough sex) - he may have done it but there is not enough evidence for a conviction, the woman may be accusing the wrong man, or she may have made it up.
But the point is, I agree with the jury's decision.
All I know is this: Women, don't go to Australia wearing Skinny jeans...
... better yet, just don't go to Australia till they've sorted this legal dispute out.
(really, DON'T! This ruling just gives perverts a licence to rape all women in tight jeans)
I mean this fails on the most basic legal terms, as rape is not defined by use of FORCE but by lack of CONSENT.
(PS: I don't blame the Jury, Juries are short sighted and narrow minded. I blame the Judge for reminding the jury they are to aquittal based on the 'issue of consent not force' and that 'co-operation or lack of resistance, is not the same as consent')
... better yet, just don't go to Australia till they've sorted this legal dispute out.
(really, DON'T! This ruling just gives perverts a licence to rape all women in tight jeans)
I mean this fails on the most basic legal terms, as rape is not defined by use of FORCE but by lack of CONSENT.
(PS: I don't blame the Jury, Juries are short sighted and narrow minded. I blame the Judge for reminding the jury they are to aquittal based on the 'issue of consent not force' and that 'co-operation or lack of resistance, is not the same as consent')
Thank you. But you wouldn't think it would need pointing out that we shouldn't be creating mass lynch mobs just because someone on the internet read about a court case, took one aspect of it and wrote an article about it.Lucas_90 said:EDIT:Wow, you ninja'd me. Good for you and your sensible opinionENKC said:
Is this a troll? Do you have any idea how patently ridiculous AND offensive it is to suggest that our country endorses rape and should not be visited by people entirely on the basis of what ONE RANDOM PERSON ON THE INTERNET said? Do you even know that Australia is consistently rated as having the highest living standards of any nation on earth alongside the Scandinavian countries?Treblaine said:
If you are sufficiently lacking in logic to genuinely believe the kind of sensationalist nonsense you've just stated, then I'm sure this fine nation of ours will survive your boycott.
It is thinking like this that results in regions being completely consumed by endless circles of violence. Murder... just for an opinion which doesn't even necessarily say:Hawkeye16 said:
"I think the rapist did do it and he should get away with it"
No no no. that is not what the poll asked, but simply:
"I support the Jury's conclusion"
Which is a VERY broad answer, catching people who simply support the legal Process as better than the perceived disadvantages of anarchy, or people who think it may not have been an actual rape and that the story was being misleading.
Oh course, you're not going to kill anyone, mainly because you can't (you don't even know who they are) which just makes it easier for you to say it as it is such an empty threat. But I find it revealing how people can let their feelings over-rule any consideration of thought, reflection and empathy.
(BTW, I voted that the jury was wrong... but only because the Judge failed to correct them... and only if the story is at it is reported)
Hooray for knee-jerk reactions. Has anyone bothered to actually read the article, to say it is sensationalist is an understatement.
Obviously the idea that skinny jeans cannot be removed without consent is a ridiculous idea for acquitting somebody of rape, but the article seems to be taking that one piece of "evidence" and trying to claim that it's the sole reason for why the man was let go.
Obviously the idea that skinny jeans cannot be removed without consent is a ridiculous idea for acquitting somebody of rape, but the article seems to be taking that one piece of "evidence" and trying to claim that it's the sole reason for why the man was let go.
We don't need your filthy logic here. People have blind outrage to express!ENKC said:
If he was acquitted due solely to the Skinny jeans being too tight to get off? Yeah I'd say that's bullshit. However I doubt that was the only reason and I don't have enough knowledge on law to make a sound judgement on this. Not to mention the fact I don't know all the other information presented in the case or if there was a history or any of the key factors that would of come up in trial. So it's bullshit if it was the only reason, but since that's probably not the case I can't form an opinion on it.
I thought you Aussies were supposed to be a bit more thick skinned? Jesus, acting outraged like a bloody west-coast American just because I called for some legal reform and gave some travel advice.ENKC said:
I'm (kinda) serious, after a ruling like this, assuming (like 90% of the people on this forum do) that the rape DID happen and the the aquittal WAS mainly from the "skinny jeans defence" why would a serial rapist not target women in Skinny jeans?!?
Though I will grant you that it MAY not be as the source claims it is.
But I am not going to be THAT keen to argue the point that: "ah the victim is lying, she was asking for it and she is crying rape for no reason" since it is very easy to end up looking like a misogynistic douchebag.
Well, to put it more correctly, the point of discussion is more the fact that the article suggests he was found innocent because of the jeans.Magnalian said: