By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 04 December 2010
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

 

Except... the prosecutors didn't admit that.

You are taking your full basis of information from HIS LAYWERS STORY and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

You keep repeating everything i've disproven... and close your ears to basic logical truths.

The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange "did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use."

 

I'm not the delusional one here... one day you'll realize it.

 

My article was more recent, the person who made my comment was a former attorney of the wikileaks owner, not a current one, and he mentioned the charges brought against him which are not what you think they are.

Also that's the woman's claims, which she'll have to prove are true (like a medical report saying that she had visible signs that she was physically hurt and a psychological report (saying that she suffered trauma), which is highly unlikely she will be able to, considering she had no problem going to a store, buying groceries, and then making the guy breakfast (like any rape victim does, right)?

I've heard both sides of the story, and I've made up my mind about what happened, you've made your mind up, now let's leave it to the courts and go back to the juicy leaked info about the US Governemnt and their crazy shenanigans.

You do realize that if he was just being charged for sex without a condom he couldn't have a warrant out for his arrest right?

In the EU You can't extradite someone to another EU country unless the crime they committed caries with it at least 2 years maxium Jail term.

The thing you are talking about carries a penalty of 750 dollars or so and wouldn't fit the statute.

As for the bolded, acually yes.  That does happen to some rape victims.  it's just another sign of your ignorance on the matter... you could use a psychology of rape class... well if you want to pretend your an expert on how rape victims act anyway.

It's also great that you've made up your mind... what you being the legally appointed judiciary of Sweden right?  You are argueing that a man not be sent back to sweden based on a proven false letter by his ex attorney.

Again though, care to argue against why the above 4 part statement isn't rape?

Even in just a hypothetical case.

Just to put it up again.


1) Sex without consent = rape.   

2) Saying you will only have sex with a condom = Consenting to have sex, only with a condom.  True or False?

3) Not wearing a condom while saying you were going to, or intentionally damaging it = Not having sex the way that was consented via your actions.

4)   Sex without consent = Rape.

 

Any disagreements with that?  Just as a hypotetical, not related to the case.  If so, which number?