ssj12 said:
Kasz216 said:
ssj12 said:
Kasz216 said:
Er.... what? Did you.... read the police reports?
Like seriously, if you actually decide to learn about the situation, you'll realize how much of a jackass you sound like.
He literally had sex with a woman, without a condom WHILE SHE WAS ASLEEP. After she had previously said he would only have sex with him if he used a condom.... multiple multiple times.
You are calling the women "Stupid whores" even though you admitted yoruself you didn't really know a damn thing about it. You are acting like a disgrace to the things you talked about in this thread trying to cover things up without even bothering to do basic research.
What makes you any better then the government you were just complaing about?
|
I believe that every man, women, and child in this world has a right to life, liberty, and happiness. The government has no right to silence your words. They have no right to keep secrets that affect your lives. It has no right to detain someone without due cause or a fair trial by their peers. No one should be judged upon ones race, religion, culture, upbringing, political stance, social status, or wealth. Judgment can only be given on testimony, real evidence, and one's words outside the court room past recordings of an act considered illegal by their peers excluding "offensive" language and statements made during an arrest towards a man declaring they stand for the moral rights of the citizens of their country. Everyone has a right to stand-up for what they believe in without fear of censorship or oppression. Everyone has a right to defend themselves against those who aim to harm themselves or loved ones. The government has no right to impose restrictions on one's life style and choice unless there is circumstantial evidence from independent non-government affiliated lab tests and studies that a product can and will eventually do harm to that individual.
I could go on, but I figure you get the idea.
And yes, I might not have the "facts." But he is not guilty till proven guilt by a trial of his peers. A police report can be filed by anyone. The evidence, including said report filed by the police and females are fact tested through lie detection and other forms of testing that can prove he had sexual intercourse while she was asleep (semen samples?). And even then, will their statements hold up, or was it their choice to even put themselves into the situation. Did he have protected sex, the unprotected sex after. Why didn't the women do anything during the unprotected sex? If they were drugged or tied up that could lead to other more severe charges. If not, They could have easily kicked him off and knocked him out at the scene of the crime instantly putting proof that this entire thing is a farce that he had unprotected sex without consent.
Many times in the USA there have been people charged with rape, when they are later proven not-guilty by DNA and other facts. Reports have been proven false by lie-detection. Let real facts and his peers give judgment to whether he is truly guilt or not.
|
A) Wait... who is treating someone guilty again? You've already judged these women "guilty" and they aren't even accused of anything yet! You've called them whores making false accusations to be famous! (Nevermind the fact that one of them already was somewhat famous and well known.) Where have I said he was guilty. All I have said is that all reports of his personality show this would be in line and therefore it is stupid to assume it's some kind of government conspiracy without any shred of proof or credible reasoning outside of "The US government doesn't like him!" Which is literally the only evidence there is... outside of specifically manufactured and made up evidence (proven to be made up mind you) by his employees.
This is quite literally the mirror image of a government coverup.
It's not like somebody is accusing Ghandi of murder. Someone who is generally referred too as a sexist... is being accused of rape. To jump to the "The acussors are whores!" card is foolish.
B) Lead to other more servre charges... you do know he is being charged with rape right? What is a more sevre charges then rape? You do know he's being charged with REAL rape right, the whole "sex by surprise" comment by his lawyer was another one of those proven to be wrong lies... as can be seen in the extradition order.
C) Why would someone need to be drugged to have sex with somebody who is asleep? All it would
D) Actually, no, it's not very often at all that people are proven not guilty by rape. A lot of people are found not guilty because rape is hard to prove, and a lot of people don't get convicted because of sexist beliefs like "they were asking for it."
That doesn't mean people are actually not guilty however or that a rape didn't take place. The actual false accusations of rape are EXTREMLY low the vast majority of people who say they were raped... were raped. I
And as an aside. OJ Simpson? Did he murder his ex wife and Ron Goldman or not?
1% of Sex offenses result in a conviction. Are you saying the other 99% were "made up."
E) You are supporting him trying to avoid being tried by his peers. That is specifically what he is trying to do right now. In the latest court ruling where it was ruled he should be extradited, his lawyers were found guilty of "delibritly trying to mislead the court."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/24/134020443/lawyer-for-wikileaks-assange-deliberately-misled-court-judge-says
His entire defense scheme has been about the most vile and unethical legal actions I've seen this year, and that's saying something when you consider the recent Againt Don't ask don't tell laws, Sony lawsuits and Obama's detention new center law.
Whether innocent or guilty his attempts at trying to avoid being tried, and trying to pollute the jury pool are the epitome of what is wrong in the justice system.
If you are going to read ANY of these articles...
I'd suggest this one... it's from someone who really likes Julian Assange... it will explain your hypocricy pretty well.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44160.html
Or, if you are going to pass over it....
"I'm not saying Assange is guilty. I'm not saying WikiLeaks is a bad thing: I think it's fantastic. I'm not saying I agree with the deranged American commentators who think he should be assassinated.
What I'm saying is that rape is an extremely important and urgent issue. Those who make an accusation of rape should not be subject to scurrilous public attack, to derision, to trivialisation and so on. They should be given the same presumptions of innocence as anyone else."
|
A) Who cares what I said. It's how I view it till proven wrong. imho, its just women trying to get famous or more famous off all this. Until the justice system states otherwise, I'll keep my opinion. The entire situation seems off.
B) Kidnapping, Held against their will, probably could throw a terrorist charge there too since he isn't of that country's citizen.
C) To stay asleep, or to prevent them from being able to fight back once they wake up.
D) That might be true for these modern days, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and didn't happen numerous times before any type of testing was possible so juries only had someone's argument to go by.
E) I disagree with the term "pollute the jury" as anyone should be able to hold their biases and maintain control of a verdict no matter what. This is why I support the handing out of fliers educating people that they have the right to jury nullification and knowledge that it is OK to vote with their conscience when determining someone's fate as that is what our constitution mandates is completely legal.
|
A) Er, because your entire arguement was "guilty untill proven innocent and you are in direct hypocricy of that fact?" In otherwords, your entire arguement is logically incorngruent, full of hypocricy, and in general actually factually wrong due to the logical incongruencies. You said you thought he was innocent because "in my country people are innocent until proven guilty!" and are accusing other people of being guilty of a crime... without a trial. This was bascally your entire point.
B) Why would any of those apply to rape? Accuse a foreigner who raped someone of terrorism... really? Kidnapping and holding someone against their will? These aren't crimes rapists are generally charged with unless they you know, kidnap someone or hold them hostage for a long period fo time. In these cases, after the accused rape, either he left, or in the other case, he stayed in her appartment while she stayed with and slept with a friend because she was too affraid to go back and sleep there. If the vast majority of rapists don't get those charges, why is it fishy that he didn't... when what he's accused of doesn't fit those crimes.
C) Again, how would that matter when you've already committed rape. If I come home, and catch someone robbing my house, and they run outside with just a tv. They've still stolen from me. Or if I come home and someone steals my stuff and keeps me in a corner via intimidation. Still robbery.
D) Er, again what? I'm actually pretty sure that hasn't changed, because you know... back in oldren times, people cared LESS about women being raped, and blamed them even MORE FOR being raped and ruining mens proper. Though even if you were correct on this point... it in no way helps up your arguement.
E) So, you support peoples right to completely lie and fabricate things? That's a bit different then handing out jurry nullfication fliers. Also, jury nullification is legal because, there is no way to make it illegal... because courts can't direct verdicts.
Jury Nullification ain't aways a good thing you know? Non-prosecution of the KKK, non-persecution of rape victims in general hapens a lot, stonings in countries with anti stroing laws, anti-female circumsission laws.... seriously.
You are in favor of direct libel to alter criminal procedings? This is really your stance?
F) You.. haven't even really tried to defend your points here. It's baffling. I've seen intellectual dishonesty before but this just takes the cake. You've literally disregarded nearly your entire arguement a post after making it. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously on this matter? Lets be honest at this point.... you just what him to be innocent because he's a high profile Libretarian. None of your arguements have been even remotely logically consistant, and you disregard your entire thesis to support another as soon as it's disproven. You think the situation is fishy, simply because you want to... the end.
