Why are people thinking american laws apply in ireland? Luckily they dont. Would Not want to live in a dangerous country Like the usa
Why are people thinking american laws apply in ireland? Luckily they dont. Would Not want to live in a dangerous country Like the usa
Semenyagoat wrote:
Why are people thinking american laws apply in ireland? Luckily they dont. Would Not want to live in a dangerous country Like the usa
Uh... a girl was raped. And a lace thong was used as proof she was askin for it. But you’re calling the US dangerous? Sure bud.
Free_the_thigh wrote:
Seriously, just think in your own personal life, if you think you are going to have sex or hoping to sex that night what pair of underwear do you put on? That semi-torn ripped pair you only wear when you are behind on your laundry (we all have that pair), or the nice clean fresh pair that emphasize your package?
This has nothing about consent. She may very well have intended to have sex, who knows, we weren’t there. However, she is reported to have said no.
Thinking that a woman is asking for it cuz she’s dressed in revealing clothing (or a lacy thong) is really dangerous and really messed up, man.
Just Jack! wrote:
Semenyagoat wrote:
Why are people thinking american laws apply in ireland? Luckily they dont. Would Not want to live in a dangerous country Like the usa
Uh... a girl was raped. And a lace thong was used as proof she was askin for it. But you’re calling the US dangerous? Sure bud.
yes the usa is dangerous. dangerous to get murdered, raped and so on. much more than europe. Its just a fact
HRH wrote:
In Ireland, only hookers and sluts wear lacy throngs; good, clean Irish girls don’t.
You poor old man.
I knew an un-repressed Irish woman whose worst fear was returning permanently. Because of cases like this...
Darwin’s Crazy Aunt wrote:
ustooge wrote:
Wearing a thong does not mean she was seeking sex.
It’s not the only reason to wear one, no. But I would say it’s reasonable to introduce it as one component of a larger body of evidence. Thong + fake ID + condoms, for example, is pretty clear evidence of knowing what you want, ahead of time, in a thoughtful and deliberate way consistent with the legal definition of consent (as opposed to the statutory implications that people her age are mentally incapable of giving consent).
Darwin,
Are you sane? There is absolutely NO reason acceptable for rape. None.
She could carry a condom, and be wearing no underwear, and there still would be no reason for rape. None.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.htmlfacts and reason wrote:
What are the details of the case?
Did the guy just grab her as she was walking home from school?
Or did he text her and try to be her "sugar daddy"?
According to him they were making out, he wanted to have sex but was having trouble getting it up. Suddenly she said stop and he says he did. Witness says he saw a hand on her throat, he says it witness misconstrued the situation. Women says she was dragged. He said they went together. Basically he said she said kind of thing.
ustooge wrote:
Darwin’s Crazy Aunt wrote:
This feels like a statutory rape case as opposed to violent sexual assault case. If that’s what this is, and the law implies that a girl her age is incapable of giving consent, then going out and buying underwear like that could be used as evidence that this girl was actively seeking/interested in sex. There’s clear forethought and intention.
You stooge! Wearing a thong does not mean she was seeking sex. She probably thought they were comfortable or wanted to hide an underwear line. I can't believe people like you are allowed to vote.
He makes a valid point making up what type of rape he is being accused of and I can't say he's wrong in saying LACE underwear could be used to show she was seeking sex if this is a case of age problem. If she was looking for comfort lace wouldn't be the option, cotton would be.I don't see anything wrong with using this point if the case is about whether the girl is able to consent or not.If this case is about violent sexual assault then the underwear is absolutely irrelevant. If it is an age thing think about it... girl consents to sex but then the guy is facing a rape charge because the law claims she is unable to consent even though she did; I see nothing wrong with bringing up the underwear in this case because the girl is not being wronged by him defending himself.
Semenyagoat wrote:
Why are people thinking american laws apply in ireland? Luckily they dont. Would Not want to live in a dangerous country Like the usa
In the United States women have the right to carry a gun (unless they are a felon, etc) which would level the playing field to stop a would he rapist regardless of how much bigger or stronger he is. Safety is not guaranteed anywhere but the right to protect yourself in the US is.
HRH wrote:
In Ireland, only hookers and sluts wear lacy throngs; good, clean Irish girls don’t.
Dang, that sucks. Nothing like seeing your girl in that VS thong you bought for her..
dwightarm wrote:
What is wrong with some of u dudes? ??
In case my handle didn't clue you in, I'm not a "dude."
It doesn't matter what a woman wears! It doesn't mean she's asking for it!
Appearance is rarely an act of coincidence, especially for women. We are conscientious creatures.
A woman could be naked and if she says NO, then it is rape.
Well I'll absolutely agree with this. But I'm wondering whether this was a question of "did she say no" rape or "was she intellectually capable of giving consent" rape. I'm not suggesting that this is a critical piece of evidence, but if this girl was looking to have sex her choice of clothing might reflect that, and mature clothing may be evidence of the maturity to give consent.
Exactly ... wrote:
Plus a 17 year old is under age, and can NOT give consent. The rape is still rape regardless.
Interestingly, the United States doesn't get to set the age of consent in Ireland. A 17 year old can absolutely give consent, regardless of what you prudish Americans think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consentRape NG verdict in Italy since woman wore tight jeans and must have taken them off so could not be forced.
JustJack! wrote:
Free_the_thigh wrote:
Seriously, just think in your own personal life, if you think you are going to have sex or hoping to sex that night what pair of underwear do you put on? That semi-torn ripped pair you only wear when you are behind on your laundry (we all have that pair), or the nice clean fresh pair that emphasize your package?
This has nothing about consent. She may very well have intended to have sex, who knows, we weren’t there. However, she is reported to have said no.
Thinking that a woman is asking for it cuz she’s dressed in revealing clothing (or a lacy thong) is really dangerous and really messed up, man.
uhh, yes it does, it goes to show intention.
She was reported to have said "no", but she was also reported to have said "yes". The job of the jury is determine if there is reasonable doubt that she in fact did consent.
If the jury has reasonable doubt regarding her not consenting, then they must acquit. How do you generate reasonable doubt, by bringing in evidence that presents an intention of consenting.
There is no evidence that can be raised proving that she did in fact consent to have sex on that night, because as you said "we weren't there". Further, consent is a subjective concept that exists within the mind of the alleged victim only, there is no possible evidence that can definitively prove what her state of mind was at the time of the incident. So, all that is left is to point to outside pieces of evidence that suggest an intention to consent or intention not to consent.
She was in a muddy back alley, that suggest an intention not to consent. Does that mean that women are incapable of consenting to have sex in back alley? No, but it does make it less likely that she consented than if the two of them went back to her place first.
The same goes for the underwear, it suggests an intention that she consented. Does that mean that a women wearing a thong and must have consented? For the same reason as the back alley example, obviously no, but it does make it more likely that she consented than if she was wearing a pair of beige granny panties.
The evidence was raised to show that she definitively consented, it was raised to show that it was more likely that she consented in this case than it would have been if she was wearing granny panties.
Would you argue that a text message saying "I can wait to have sex with you" shouldn't be admitted because it just shows intention?
It has nothing to do with thinking that the woman is "asking for it" and everything to do with raising a reasonable doubt about whether or not she consented to the interaction.
Darwin's Crazy Aunt wrote:
Well I'll absolutely agree with this. But I'm wondering whether this was a question of "did she say no" rape or "was she intellectually capable of giving consent" rape. I'm not suggesting that this is a critical piece of evidence, but if this girl was looking to have sex her choice of clothing might reflect that, and mature clothing may be evidence of the maturity to give consent.
Not who you were responding to but did you even bother to read the articles? They clearly state that she said no. It doesn't matter if homegirl was 'seeking sex' at one point, and even if she had been clad in some fetish latex s&m gear and arrived with the intent of having sex: she said no.
Doesn't matter what you're wearing or what your intent was. Nothing before that matters. If a person says no, then that's it. It's rape.
You’re an idiot wrote:
Free_the_thigh wrote:
only a virgin would think that a girl wearing a thong has no relevance to what she wanted that night.
Seriously, just think in your own personal life, if you think you are going to have sex or hoping to sex that night what pair of underwear do you put on? That semi-torn ripped pair you only wear when you are behind on your laundry (we all have that pair), or the nice clean fresh pair that emphasize your package?
The saying "If her bra matches her panties when you take off her clothes, it wasn't you who decided to have sex" is true for a reason
You clearly have no experience with women. Before I married, every single girl I ever dated primarily wore thongs. All of my wife’s underwear is “sexy” . She only wears thongs. I know (in hindsight) she wore thongs on every single date we went out on together before we were married. She did not consent to sex with me on those dates even though she was wearing sexy underwear. Should I have raped her on those dates? Clearly she was asking for it with her underwear choice, right? No. She wasn’t.
A huge amount of women only wear thongs. It’s meaningless. I can also confirm on many occasions I’ve witnessed my wife, and the women I dated, put on matching underwear and it certainly was no guarantee of anything.
are you incapable of rationale thought?
I state that it has relevancy to the issue of determining post hoc if she had consented, and you draw from that the conclusions that I believe men should rape all girls who wear thongs?
Darwin's Crazy Aunt wrote:
Well I'll absolutely agree with this. But I'm wondering whether this was a question of "did she say no" rape or "was she intellectually capable of giving consent" rape. I'm not suggesting that this is a critical piece of evidence, but if this girl was looking to have sex her choice of clothing might reflect that, and mature clothing may be evidence of the maturity to give consent.
So if a 13 year old girl is wearing a thong in your mind that is a useful piece of information to determine if she’s looking for sex and mature enough to consent to sex?
Just Jack! wrote:
Darwin's Crazy Aunt wrote:
Well I'll absolutely agree with this. But I'm wondering whether this was a question of "did she say no" rape or "was she intellectually capable of giving consent" rape. I'm not suggesting that this is a critical piece of evidence, but if this girl was looking to have sex her choice of clothing might reflect that, and mature clothing may be evidence of the maturity to give consent.
Not who you were responding to but did you even bother to read the articles? They clearly state that she said no. It doesn't matter if homegirl was 'seeking sex' at one point, and even if she had been clad in some fetish latex s&m gear and arrived with the intent of having sex: she said no.
Doesn't matter what you're wearing or what your intent was. Nothing before that matters. If a person says no, then that's it. It's rape.
Yes, you are correct. A person could be in the middle of having sex and then say "stop" and if the person does not stop, they are raping her. The fact that they were previously having consensual sex does not matter. That is the law.
The underwear was not raised to argue the law, it was raised to argue the factual matter of whether or not she did in fact say "no". As no one in the jury was there that night and they have one person saying she said "no" and one person saying she said "yes", the jury needs to look at other extrinsic evidence to attempt to determine whether or not they have a reasonable doubt that she did in fact consent.
Extrinsic evidence such as arriving at someone's house clad in s&m gear is relevant to the jury being able to determine the factual matter of what happened that night.