Deleted_User
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 7,831
- Reaction score
- 535
- Points
- 113
Apparently this needs to be said again:
If the players are telling the truth, the woman was a willing participant.
I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.
but - unless you were there and you know 1st-hand what happened, there is a possibility that the players are telling the truth. there is also a possibility that the players are lying. that's why these cases are so hard to prove in court.
Now, in the court of public opinion, group sex seems icky to a lot of people, whether it was consensual or not. But I don't presume to judge other people's lifestyles or behavior. If someone feels they are qualified or justified to pass judgement on other people, that's your thing.
Again, first, let's not think that because more than one person testifies on one side, does not mean it is more believable, especially when they are co-defendants. And, the only person in the room that can say if she consented is the accuser. And, in her testimony, she never did. Doesn't matter what the men said at all. The only question that remains is whether there is any evidence which backs up her position. The only evidence that is available that suggests no legal consent occurred is the alcohol. According to state law, consent may not be granted held up when alcohol is involved. Very long standing history in the courts regarding this principle.
I pass judgement on people without a court granting me permission every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It is American as apple pie and yogurt parfaits.
The Founders gave Americans the right to have jury trials for a reason, because they trusted the publics judgement on matters of law. So, judging people is a good attribute to have, not a bad one. Or, there would be no reason at all for juries to exist.
Last edited: