Diluted Dante wrote:What in the name of fuck?
Yossarian wrote:RedDave2 wrote:Yossarian wrote:If criminal investigations were an effective tool for dealing with these types of situations, I doubt we’d ever see anything like this across social media.
If the criminal investigation isn't given the chance though?
Just think a situation where people can post anything and it can become effectively truth without any real effort is as damaging to society as a broken justice system.
And I don't know if this is dealing with the situation. Landis might suffer a little on this but he can probably bounce back if it doesn't spread far enough. If there's truth to this (I haven't gone full into the complete murk of this but there is a rape allegation) he should face criminal action. Calling him out on twitter isn't really protecting others.
Warning people to watch out for someone who may be dangerous to them definitely is protecting others.
I’d also be amazed if none of these concerns were raised anywhere before they were on social media, people tend to protect those who can make them money.
Of course, ideally this would be dealt with by the proper authorities who would find the truth and determine the punishment, but we live in a world that’s very far from ideal. Warnings to others may be the only recourse some people have.
Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’
Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.
Q: I’m sorry?
Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.
Q: All right. Is there — within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26, 2013?
Rose: No.
Diluted Dante wrote:Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’
Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.
Q: I’m sorry?
Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.
Q: All right. Is there — within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26, 2013?
Rose: No.
The fuck? He got off after that?
Diluted Dante wrote:Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’
Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.
Q: I’m sorry?
Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.
Q: All right. Is there — within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26, 2013?
Rose: No.
The fuck? He got off after that?
Diluted Dante wrote:"I had no indication the person I had sex with wanted to have sex with me".
Kind of cuts to the heart of consent does it not?
cockbeard wrote:Seems I'm just as confused as Gonzo here, could somebody please add some context. It sounds like Rose is a female (yes I'm assuming gender there) and she's just said that if a bunch of guys are coming over it's for sex, so I wonder why she invited them if that's the case. I'm sure if some context was added it would make more sense, also I'm not being a rape apologist here, just I seem to only have 3% of a story
cockbeard wrote:Seems I'm just as confused as Gonzo here, could somebody please add some context. It sounds like Rose is a female (yes I'm assuming gender there) and she's just said that if a bunch of guys are coming over it's for sex, so I wonder why she invited them if that's the case. I'm sure if some context was added it would make more sense, also I'm not being a rape apologist here, just I seem to only have 3% of a story
pantyfire wrote:Not really, because at any time after he arrived she might have consented.
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:Is that your understanding of the case, that he had no indication from the person he had sex with wanted to have sex with him? Can I ask you, is this an indication?Diluted Dante wrote:"I had no indication the person I had sex with wanted to have sex with me". Kind of cuts to the heart of consent does it not?You don't seem to understand the case, like you haven't looked into it but decided this was A FUCKING OUTRAGE WTFSpoiler:
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:cockbeard wrote:Seems I'm just as confused as Gonzo here, could somebody please add some context. It sounds like Rose is a female (yes I'm assuming gender there) and she's just said that if a bunch of guys are coming over it's for sex, so I wonder why she invited them if that's the case. I'm sure if some context was added it would make more sense, also I'm not being a rape apologist here, just I seem to only have 3% of a story
Rose is a basketball player. He got in a relationship but wanted FFM kink. Or MMF. Or both. She didn't. Only she came over to his with a friend and everyone seemed to think it might be on.
It wasn't on. Friend left with her. But then she texts Rose and says, her friend is weak, bring my fuckbelt, no don't send for me you bring it.
She says, I'm guessing, I wanted sex with Rose only, he brought a train on me and I was totally passed out. She couldn't explain how he got into the flat with his friends, he must have broken in.
He says she knew this was about running a train on her and her friend, and he thought she was saying ok let's go with just me. She let him into the flat
The jury believed him. That's a civil lawsuit by the way, balance of probabilities.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!