Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[Snownine]

While not condoning the jury, i have serious trouble getting my girlfriend's skinny jeans off. I find it plausible they wouldn't get them off without consent

She could have removed them under threat of violence though.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Might I simply add to the growing trend in this topic with..

What. The. Fuck?

Jury and Judge must be clearly daft, blind, and/or stupid.. to an extreme slant.

 

[Deleted]

We don't know how fat she is or how tight per particular pants are. I can't comment on this.

The intent should still be a charge though.

If he had intent to rape and failed in the attempt, then he has not raped and the not guilty verdict is just. He could be legitimately brought up on sexual harassment charges, however.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Sexual harassement should be charged after. Dunno why they just forgot about it though.

 

[replingham153]

true true. I did find the first part as "OMG RAPZZZZeeeeeeZZZzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzZZZZZZZeeeeeeeeZZeeeeeeeee. then i read ahead and went, "oh. that jury's stupid!!!

 

[Downfall89]

OK - you may find it a little crazy, but what if he was actually telling the truth and he didn't rape her? There are plenty of fucked-up women out there too (not as many as men admittedly, but still).

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers and his life wasn't ruined by a (possibly) wrongful rape conviction. As far as I'm concerned, he's innocent.

Agreed. Everyone else be hatin'. And skinny jeans are hard to take off? I mean, look at them! They are so tight around the legs (hence SKINNY leg jeans) that, even with personal experience, I would assume that it would be hard to take them off, especially forcefully. And if the defense for this alleged rape was that the jeans were tight, then the prosecution musn't have had much evidence..

 

[Super Toast]

What is this I don't even

 

[David Bray]

While not condoning the jury, i have serious trouble getting my girlfriend's skinny jeans off. I find it plausible they wouldn't get them off without consent

She could have removed them under threat of violence though.

Very true. I in no means intend to defend the jury's decision, only that it is plausible in a loose sense.
Quite unlike the jeans.

 

[Snownine]

While not condoning the jury, i have serious trouble getting my girlfriend's skinny jeans off. I find it plausible they wouldn't get them off without consent

She could have removed them under threat of violence though.

Very true. I in no means intend to defend the jury's decision, only that it is plausible in a loose sense.


Yeah
Quite unlike the jeans.

While not condoning the jury, i have serious trouble getting my girlfriend's skinny jeans off. I find it plausible they wouldn't get them off without consent

She could have removed them under threat of violence though.

Very true. I in no means intend to defend the jury's decision, only that it is plausible in a loose sense.
Quite unlike the jeans.

And I am just speculating. I don't know anything about the case, and aside from what we get from the media no one really does, so there could be more to it than just the jeans.

 

[Lucifron]

Hahahahahaha. Australia is the ass of the week!

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Hahahahahaha. Australia is the ass of the week!

So are the people who read the article without questioning its motive or origin. Way to go.

 

[slowpoke999]

I can't even joke about this because of the fact she was wearing SKINNY pants, not fucking loose ones so there goes the 'they were already loose she was asking for it'

It doesn't matter if this was just a thread in a string of evidence, where the fuck would 'her pants were tight' spring up, does the jury know exactly how the guy was trying to rape her and how much force he was exerting.Maybe they are all old fucks, infact, that's probably the whole argument, old people should not be allowed in juries, that be a more rational argument then 7 out of 12 people being retarded enough to think it's impossible to remove or make a girl remove their tight jeans, or maybe they're weak/stupid as fuck"Oh that guy couldn't remove her pants, I'm strong but need mommies help putting my shirt on, and I'm like the strongest guy I know".

EVEN IF she removed the pants herself, it would be so easy to say to a girl to remove her pants or you'll kill her,unless she stated he removed the pants himself

I'm glad you're not on the jury, it that's any consolation. It's people with biased, uninformed views that give juries a bad name. Look up the word 'objectivity'.
You would convict a potentially innocent man because he 'could have' done it? I swear to god, everyone should attend a compulsory law school, just so they can appreciate the amount of pressure placed on a jury.

No, I'm saying don't throw the case out because her jeans are too tight, that be as bad as convicting a man who 'could've' done it, in this case she 'could've' been not-raped

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I can't even joke about this because of the fact she was wearing SKINNY pants, not fucking loose ones so there goes the 'they were already loose she was asking for it'

It doesn't matter if this was just a thread in a string of evidence, where the fuck would 'her pants were tight' spring up, does the jury know exactly how the guy was trying to rape her and how much force he was exerting.Maybe they are all old fucks, infact, that's probably the whole argument, old people should not be allowed in juries, that be a more rational argument then 7 out of 12 people being retarded enough to think it's impossible to remove or make a girl remove their tight jeans, or maybe they're weak/stupid as fuck"Oh that guy couldn't remove her pants, I'm strong but need mommies help putting my shirt on, and I'm like the strongest guy I know".

EVEN IF she removed the pants herself, it would be so easy to say to a girl to remove her pants or you'll kill her,unless she stated he removed the pants himself

I'm glad you're not on the jury, it that's any consolation. It's people with biased, uninformed views that give juries a bad name. Look up the word 'objectivity'.
You would convict a potentially innocent man because he 'could have' done it? I swear to god, everyone should attend a compulsory law school, just so they can appreciate the amount of pressure placed on a jury.

No, I'm saying don't throw the case out because her jeans are too tight, that be as bad as convicting a man who 'could've' done it, in this case she 'could've' been not-raped

You honestly believe that those bloody jeans are the single piece of evidence that contributed to his aquittal? Seriously, I'm asking, because everyone who answers yes to that question really need to look at that article again. It's a blogger's opinion!

 

[slowpoke999]

I can't even joke about this because of the fact she was wearing SKINNY pants, not fucking loose ones so there goes the 'they were already loose she was asking for it'

It doesn't matter if this was just a thread in a string of evidence, where the fuck would 'her pants were tight' spring up, does the jury know exactly how the guy was trying to rape her and how much force he was exerting.Maybe they are all old fucks, infact, that's probably the whole argument, old people should not be allowed in juries, that be a more rational argument then 7 out of 12 people being retarded enough to think it's impossible to remove or make a girl remove their tight jeans, or maybe they're weak/stupid as fuck"Oh that guy couldn't remove her pants, I'm strong but need mommies help putting my shirt on, and I'm like the strongest guy I know".

EVEN IF she removed the pants herself, it would be so easy to say to a girl to remove her pants or you'll kill her,unless she stated he removed the pants himself

I'm glad you're not on the jury, it that's any consolation. It's people with biased, uninformed views that give juries a bad name. Look up the word 'objectivity'.
You would convict a potentially innocent man because he 'could have' done it? I swear to god, everyone should attend a compulsory law school, just so they can appreciate the amount of pressure placed on a jury.

No, I'm saying don't throw the case out because her jeans are too tight, that be as bad as convicting a man who 'could've' done it, in this case she 'could've' been not-raped

You honestly believe that those bloody jeans are the single piece of evidence that contributed to his aquittal? Seriously, I'm asking, because everyone who answers yes to that question really need to look at that article again. It's a blogger's opinion!

The freaking jeans shouldn't even be evidence at all, that's the problem, either the blogger is lieing in which case you can just dismiss everything in this thread or she's not and something's not right about the case

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I can't even joke about this because of the fact she was wearing SKINNY pants, not fucking loose ones so there goes the 'they were already loose she was asking for it'

It doesn't matter if this was just a thread in a string of evidence, where the fuck would 'her pants were tight' spring up, does the jury know exactly how the guy was trying to rape her and how much force he was exerting.Maybe they are all old fucks, infact, that's probably the whole argument, old people should not be allowed in juries, that be a more rational argument then 7 out of 12 people being retarded enough to think it's impossible to remove or make a girl remove their tight jeans, or maybe they're weak/stupid as fuck"Oh that guy couldn't remove her pants, I'm strong but need mommies help putting my shirt on, and I'm like the strongest guy I know".

EVEN IF she removed the pants herself, it would be so easy to say to a girl to remove her pants or you'll kill her,unless she stated he removed the pants himself

I'm glad you're not on the jury, it that's any consolation. It's people with biased, uninformed views that give juries a bad name. Look up the word 'objectivity'.
You would convict a potentially innocent man because he 'could have' done it? I swear to god, everyone should attend a compulsory law school, just so they can appreciate the amount of pressure placed on a jury.

No, I'm saying don't throw the case out because her jeans are too tight, that be as bad as convicting a man who 'could've' done it, in this case she 'could've' been not-raped

You honestly believe that those bloody jeans are the single piece of evidence that contributed to his aquittal? Seriously, I'm asking, because everyone who answers yes to that question really need to look at that article again. It's a blogger's opinion!

The freaking jeans shouldn't even be evidence at all, that's the problem, either the blogger is lieing in which case you can just dismiss everything in this thread or she's not and something's not right about the case

I'm not saying the jeans aren't rediculous on their own, because they are. However, the context in which they were presented in the trial, along with any other collaberative evidence is not mentioned in the blog, who in my opinion is another intarwebz moron with an opinion they deem 'important' enough to have an entire webpage dedicated to it and their convoluted ideas of how the legal system works.

 

[Eponet]

I can't even joke about this because of the fact she was wearing SKINNY pants, not fucking loose ones so there goes the 'they were already loose she was asking for it'

It doesn't matter if this was just a thread in a string of evidence, where the fuck would 'her pants were tight' spring up, does the jury know exactly how the guy was trying to rape her and how much force he was exerting.Maybe they are all old fucks, infact, that's probably the whole argument, old people should not be allowed in juries, that be a more rational argument then 7 out of 12 people being retarded enough to think it's impossible to remove or make a girl remove their tight jeans, or maybe they're weak/stupid as fuck"Oh that guy couldn't remove her pants, I'm strong but need mommies help putting my shirt on, and I'm like the strongest guy I know".

EVEN IF she removed the pants herself, it would be so easy to say to a girl to remove her pants or you'll kill her,unless she stated he removed the pants himself

Why are you saying 7 out of 12 people?

From the article, and all the links coming from it, I've only stumbled across one mention that "one of" the jurers sent a note that they didn't think the man could have taken the jeans off.

Even then, it could very well have been a minor, if not completely ignored factor.

The fact that the trial was an aquital as opposed to a single hung jury + retrial suggests that it wasn't the first to reach a similar verdict.

 

[silasbufu]

A man in Australia was recently acquitted of the rape charges he was faced with, because the defense said it would be impossible, or very unlikely he would be able to get the woman's skinny jeans down without her consent.

This is ridiculous. My girlfriend wears skinny jeans all the time, and I have no trouble getting them off. Granted, she isn't trying to fight me.. but regardless, it's easily possible. Skinny jeans are no tighter around the waist than a normal pair of jeans, they are just tighter around the thighs and legs. How the Jury didn't realize you only have to pull them down to a certain point before you have "access" is beyond me.

Fellow Escapists, what do you think? Are the charges being dropped on the account of "she was wearing skinny jeans" bogus? Or do you think it's a solid defense?

( http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/05/skinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case/?icid=main|aim|dl8|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2F2010%2F05%2F05%2Fskinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case%2F )

If this defense worked ( and I consider it to be pretty dumb ) then it would mean that the prosecution had absolutely no case . Any form of evidence or witness would beat that defense statement.
If a man would be put in jail everytime a woman cried rape without any form of evidence we would have a problem.

 

[slowpoke999]

I can't even joke about this because of the fact she was wearing SKINNY pants, not fucking loose ones so there goes the 'they were already loose she was asking for it'

It doesn't matter if this was just a thread in a string of evidence, where the fuck would 'her pants were tight' spring up, does the jury know exactly how the guy was trying to rape her and how much force he was exerting.Maybe they are all old fucks, infact, that's probably the whole argument, old people should not be allowed in juries, that be a more rational argument then 7 out of 12 people being retarded enough to think it's impossible to remove or make a girl remove their tight jeans, or maybe they're weak/stupid as fuck"Oh that guy couldn't remove her pants, I'm strong but need mommies help putting my shirt on, and I'm like the strongest guy I know".

EVEN IF she removed the pants herself, it would be so easy to say to a girl to remove her pants or you'll kill her,unless she stated he removed the pants himself

Why are you saying 7 out of 12 people?

From the article, and all the links coming from it, I've only stumbled across one mention that "one of" the jurers sent a note that they didn't think the man could have taken the jeans off.

Even then, it could very well have been a minor, if not completely ignored factor.

The fact that the trial was an aquital as opposed to a single hung jury + retrial suggests that it wasn't the first to reach a similar verdict.

I just said 7 on of twelve because to my knowledge a jury is made up of twelve people and you need at least more then half to make a majority decision, or at least the jury overall agreed based on the majority