Another case of Australia's affirmative sexual consent law - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15172536
B0ycey wrote:Given the perpetrator admitted that the victim didn't want sex but pursued anyway because he wanted to please her means this REALLY IS an open and shut case actually.

The overall message she gave him, in this situation, is that she wasn't really interested in sex at that moment, even though she had plausibly been interested in sex only a little while before, but when he pressed her and insisted, her lack of any resistance (verbal or otherwise) showed that she was acquiescing, and going to let him.

That is a reasonable assumption to make here.

She had met him on a sex hook-up site and invited him to her home on the first meeting.
#15172538
Puffer Fish wrote:The overall message she gave him, in this situation, is that she wasn't really interested in sex at that moment,


Woulda Coulda Shoulda.

What occurred prior or what might have happened later doesn't actually matter. The only thing that matters in a rape case is was consent given at that moment in time. So this is your reply on the matter. So it was rape even under your own words. And to try and put it into a context that you might understand, is you might not mind getting wet under the shower in the morning. You might not mind getting wet whilst swimming in the afternoon. But if I pushed you in the river whilst on the way to the pool in-between, you might mind getting wet actually. And isn't that really all that matters - context.
#15172611
@Puffer Fish

This is ridiculous.

You presented a case of obvious rape, and now you want everyone to agree this is not rape because she did not protest the way in which you wanted her to protest.

Your only explanation for this not being rape is that she could have said no louder and more clearly.
#15238438
Something else I discovered about this case...

The first jury was unable to reach a verdict. The article says "...after failing to reach a unanimous or a majority verdict."
That means there had to be MORE THAN ONE juror who disagreed with the guilty verdict.
He was only convicted after a retrial by a second jury.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-07/ ... d/12945776

Trump and Biden have big differences on some issue[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]