California makes it a crime to remove a condom without woman's explicit consent - 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 ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15228565
Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems like unsupported speculation and not a real argument.

Why? If the law makes something illegal, and there's pretty much only one way anyone could ever be prosecuted by that law, isn't it reasonable to assume it's going to happen? That the prosecutor, judge and jury could easily decide it constitutes adequate evidence.

Give us one realistic example of how a man could ever be convicted of this law that involves more than just the allegations of the woman.

I think we all know you can't.

They're going to prosecute the man because it's illegal, and there is never going to be more evidence than the woman's claim that the man did that.
#15228568
Puffer Fish wrote:Give us one realistic example of how a man could ever be convicted of this law that involves more than just the allegations of the woman.

I think we all know you can't.

They're going to prosecute the man because it's illegal, and there is never going to be more evidence than the woman's claim that the man did that.
Total bullshit. Again, you make absurdly stupid conclusions that are based on sheer fantasy!

Only rapists think like you, @Puffer Fish.
#15228569
Puffer Fish wrote:Why? If the law makes something illegal, and there's pretty much only one way anyone could ever be prosecuted by that law, isn't it reasonable to assume it's going to happen? That the prosecutor, judge and jury could easily decide it constitutes adequate evidence.

Give us one realistic example of how a man could ever be convicted of this law that involves more than just the allegations of the woman.

I think we all know you can't.

They're going to prosecute the man because it's illegal, and there is never going to be more evidence than the woman's claim that the man did that.


It would be extremely hard to convict based on evidence, but I don't think they're throwing out the concept of presumption of innocence which the entire legal system is based on.
#15228609
Unthinking Majority wrote:It would be extremely hard to convict based on evidence, but I don't think they're throwing out the concept of presumption of innocence which the entire legal system is based on.

That is my point.

See, you have an idealistic expectation of what the jury SHOULD do. They SHOULD refuse to ever enforce this law because there will never be adequate evidence to "prove" that the man actually did it.

But I'm telling you, in the real world, that is not going to be what happens.

Some men already get convicted of rape based on nothing else other than the testimony of the woman.
Just imagine how easy it will be to convict him here, with something much less serious.

When a jury knows that a law exists, believes that that law should exist, and there's only one type of evidence that could ever result in someone being convicted under that law, the jury is likely to convict on that evidence.

You're just being naive and block-headed if you think they are never going to charge and convict a man under this new law.
#15228670
Puffer Fish wrote:Why? If the law makes something illegal, and there's pretty much only one way anyone could ever be prosecuted by that law, isn't it reasonable to assume it's going to happen? That the prosecutor, judge and jury could easily decide it constitutes adequate evidence.

Give us one realistic example of how a man could ever be convicted of this law that involves more than just the allegations of the woman.

I think we all know you can't.

They're going to prosecute the man because it's illegal, and there is never going to be more evidence than the woman's claim that the man did that.


No.

Find a single case where a man was found guilty based solely on the say so of a woman.
#15229026
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Find a single case where a man was found guilty based solely on the say so of a woman.

I could find plenty.

If you are even saying that then you are extremely ignorant about how things work.

Probably MOST rape cases only involve the claims of the woman.

You want just one story? Take a look here:

"Take a look what a false rape accusation can be do"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=182114
#15229028
Puffer Fish wrote:I could find plenty.
Post it. You're mostly just talk about imaginary scenarios.

Most of the time, rape accusations are true. The rate of false accusations is at the same rate as false accusations for ANY crime, but that doesn't fit your rapey narrative.

edit: fixed quote.
Last edited by Godstud on 23 May 2022 14:05, edited 1 time in total.
#15229052
Puffer Fish wrote:I could find plenty.

If you are even saying that then you are extremely ignorant about how things work.

Probably MOST rape cases only involve the claims of the woman.

You want just one story? Take a look here:

"Take a look what a false rape accusation can be do"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=182114


Then go find one, give us the link and a quote.

Let us know when you do.

I heard this sticker was on the truck https:/[…]

20 years in the army? Yea. I think so. A […]

The Ministry for the Future has some MMT lessons[…]

There is virtually no thinking involved. It's jus[…]