The same way that the majority of 'intelligent' people in a thread accept a biased blog post as sound legal transcript.gamefreakbsp said:
Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans
- Thread starter Mcface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...yea, that's total bullshit.
sure it takes longer than your usual pair of pants, its still only a couple of seconds or a minute longer. I'll time the next time my girlfriend or myself wear them.
sure it takes longer than your usual pair of pants, its still only a couple of seconds or a minute longer. I'll time the next time my girlfriend or myself wear them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/05/01/2010-05-01_jury_acquits_accused_rapist_rules_womans_skinny_jeans_so_tight_she_must_have_hel.html
NY Daily News says this has been pulled off before.
Whether or not the tight jeans were the deciding factor in the verdict, even bringing the subject up is absolutely stupid. It's like saying "No he definitely could not have flashed his privates in public, he was wearing this really complicated belt buckle, and it would've taken him too long to open it."
NY Daily News says this has been pulled off before.
Whether or not the tight jeans were the deciding factor in the verdict, even bringing the subject up is absolutely stupid. It's like saying "No he definitely could not have flashed his privates in public, he was wearing this really complicated belt buckle, and it would've taken him too long to open it."
This...I have a friend currently going through the same process (not down to skinny jeans but whatever), his final court date is coming up and theres a chance he could be going to prison for something i know he didn't commit, thats not to say it didn't happen but i know my friend in question is innocent.Davrel said:
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
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'.slowpoke999 said:
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.
Please people. Don't be stupid about this.
I doubt we know the full story - we have no background information or even a solid summary of the case. We have no idea.
If you want to believe a BLOG source about what happens in a court, then go ahead, but I seriously doubt the skinny jeans were the only reason he was acquitted. I would wager quite a bit of money on the assumption that there was no proof against him to begin with.
Don't mount your moral high hourse and form opinions when you have no idea what happened to begin with.
I doubt we know the full story - we have no background information or even a solid summary of the case. We have no idea.
If you want to believe a BLOG source about what happens in a court, then go ahead, but I seriously doubt the skinny jeans were the only reason he was acquitted. I would wager quite a bit of money on the assumption that there was no proof against him to begin with.
Don't mount your moral high hourse and form opinions when you have no idea what happened to begin with.
It's still an all or nothing thing; one infamous trial of a politicion ended with a hung Jury because 2 jurors flat out refused to be unbiased (both were supporters of his party, one was even a member of the youth movement).AjimboB said:
If they taught you that beyond reasonable doubt and unanimous decision are not apart of our law you should consider suing them.
You don't have a girlfriend, and your hand does not wear skinny jeans.Mcface said:
Okay okay, kidding. On topic, I think it's completely moronic for him to be acquitted on that. But then again, if he didn't accomplish the rape, then he doesn't deserve credit. So yeah.
Yeah, stuff like that definitely happens. I know a girl who claimed rape 5 times in 2 years. The first guy got convicted, then it happened again and the guy was acquitted after a long deliberation. After that, the rest of the guys got off because it was clear she was lying. In fact, the first guy that was convicted got a retrial because that, and he was found innocent.konkwastaken said:
The lengths some girls go to just for revenge and/or attention is baffling.
Has anyone else noticed that the article doesn't actually quote anything along the lines of. "We came to this conclusion because the jeans would be too difficult to remove."
A court is obligated to give all the facts, so any weird questions might have just been a matter of procedure, with the aquittal being due to the prosecutor not providing sufficient evidence to convict.
The article gives neither hide nor hair of what arguments the prosecution brought forth. For all we know, it could have just been a case of his word against hers. In which case I applaud (some of) the jury for not giving in to their emotions and convicting on a knee jerk reaction to the allegation of rape.
A court is obligated to give all the facts, so any weird questions might have just been a matter of procedure, with the aquittal being due to the prosecutor not providing sufficient evidence to convict.
The article gives neither hide nor hair of what arguments the prosecution brought forth. For all we know, it could have just been a case of his word against hers. In which case I applaud (some of) the jury for not giving in to their emotions and convicting on a knee jerk reaction to the allegation of rape.
They do exist, however you're missing the point here; the Jury didn't believe that she was sexually assualted or raped. Again, the source provided isn't unbiased and only links to other blogs, so there's a chance that it's deliberately focusing on the jeans example (although there was a case where a judge ruled in favour of the defendent because he didn't think he could get her jeans off - this was many years ago). If there were other factors at work, like the victim making inconsistant statements, then the Jury might be less inclined to believe her.ace_of_something said:
Nice to see how a blog giving a very bare-bones summary of one aspect of a trial is enough to get you to judge an entire country. Do you really want us Aussies to go through your countries dirty laundry and bring up all the retarded court decisions you guys have made?Krion_Vark said:
I don't know the specifics of the trial, and it may have simply been pointed out that the man would have had difficulty forcefully removing the clothing from an unwilling victim without damaging the clothing or the women herself.
For everyone that keeps harping on how skinny jeans are removable. Well of course they are. You don't see a lot of people putting clothing on that will never come off. The issue would be how easy they where to get off on this particular persons body if that person was unwilling. Or for all we know there was just a passing mention of the jeans and the article fixed on that for a better story.
At the end of the day I would be forced to agree with the jury, the did their civic duty to the best of their abilities with the information they where given and this was the result. Unless I can see everything that went on during that trial I can't make any other judgment.
For everyone that keeps harping on how skinny jeans are removable. Well of course they are. You don't see a lot of people putting clothing on that will never come off. The issue would be how easy they where to get off on this particular persons body if that person was unwilling. Or for all we know there was just a passing mention of the jeans and the article fixed on that for a better story.
At the end of the day I would be forced to agree with the jury, the did their civic duty to the best of their abilities with the information they where given and this was the result. Unless I can see everything that went on during that trial I can't make any other judgment.
That blog the OP linked too was obviously biased, but then I ran across something the blogger said:
I will pull it back together to say this: Until (frighteningly) recently, rape cases hinged on whether or not the victim had physically fought back against his or her assailant. In the event that evidence of physical resistance was absent, it was usually ruled that the sexual act was consensual. In the last decade or so, prosecutors have finally been able to prove lack of consent by presenting the victim's verbal objections.
No. Oh hell no. You do NOT ignore a lack of physical trauma in favor of something completely unprovable unless a videotape is involved. This leads to day-after regret becoming cries of rape. Didn't we go though this shit with the Duke Lacross team? Three guys got their lives fucked over because some dumb ***** wanted money from them. There was no physical evidence, just her (fraudulent) word against theirs.
And back to the case at hand, I think there was not enough evidence to convict the guy, and jeans were the least part of his defense. Though I have to say, getting them off of a girl when she's participating is a real *****, so I could see that a rapist would have a hell of a time if the victim was resisting.
I will pull it back together to say this: Until (frighteningly) recently, rape cases hinged on whether or not the victim had physically fought back against his or her assailant. In the event that evidence of physical resistance was absent, it was usually ruled that the sexual act was consensual. In the last decade or so, prosecutors have finally been able to prove lack of consent by presenting the victim's verbal objections.
No. Oh hell no. You do NOT ignore a lack of physical trauma in favor of something completely unprovable unless a videotape is involved. This leads to day-after regret becoming cries of rape. Didn't we go though this shit with the Duke Lacross team? Three guys got their lives fucked over because some dumb ***** wanted money from them. There was no physical evidence, just her (fraudulent) word against theirs.
And back to the case at hand, I think there was not enough evidence to convict the guy, and jeans were the least part of his defense. Though I have to say, getting them off of a girl when she's participating is a real *****, so I could see that a rapist would have a hell of a time if the victim was resisting.
Indeed. I would rather see several rapists walk free than see an innocent man imprisoned because a woman 'said' he had raped her with no other evidence to back it up.JaredXE said: