Husband raped wife on wedding night after she declined him sex

OP

Original post by Clip

What is presumptive is to say that someone who has been found not guilty, is in fact...guilty.

see my before post, a man has just got off murder and manslaughter charges for stabbing a 17 year old to death, 12 times.

does that mean that actually a ghost stabbed the boy to death? Btw it is a fact this guy committed this crime, he got off on 'self defence' pleas.

how is stabbing someone 12 times self defence? a not guilty verdict does not mean the person didnt commit the crime.

Reply 182

buchanan700

16

Original post by yothi5

I thought it was customary to have sex on your wedding night? She shouldn't have got so drunk on her wedding either. Not defending the man by any means though.

Yes you are defending him. You are disgusting. Why is this the thing you first think of? A woman is repeatedly raped and all you can think is 'oh, what a frigid woman'. It's like it said. She didn't want to. End of.

It's these sort of attitudes that set us back 100 years.

To the OP: Absolutely vile. Awful. Hope he gets whats coming to him. Sadly it was only in 1991 that rape within marriage was made illegal...no wonder so many men feel 'entitled'.
All my thoughts to this poor woman.

Reply 183

Clip

19

Original post by badcheesecrispy

see my before post, a man has just got off murder and manslaughter charges for stabbing a 17 year old to death, 12 times.

does that mean that actually a ghost stabbed the boy to death? Btw it is a fact this guy committed this crime, he got off on 'self defence' pleas.

how is stabbing someone 12 times self defence? a not guilty verdict does not mean the person didnt commit the crime.

First, that doesn't sound like an accurate report of your murder case.

Second, "not guilty" does indeed mean that you didn't commit the crime.

Third, where are you saying this apparent miscarriage of justice is coming from? This was a jury trial. Are you saying that those jurors were wrong?

Reply 184

kunoichi

20

Original post by Robinson's_Crusade

I never have understood this objection - it's blood, not superglue or acid.

For men if your happy fine, though again a man who hasnt thought about the womens perspective.

It can be very uncomfortable to have sex when you are on your period, remember women get cramps, feel bloated etc. It is not particularly enjoyable. Not saying all women feel that but many.

Reply 185

kunoichi

20

Original post by Simplicity

He has been cleared.

Seriously, this is why rape cases are a joke. Even if the person is found not guilty you still are labelled a rapist. So girl makes up rape claim to get back at the guy and he is labelled a rapist and has his life destroyed.

I know someone who spent a year in jail because of someone making up rape stories.

I blame feminist.

I blame rapists. If no one ever raped anyone, no man would run the risk of having his name blackened by the few disgusting women who lie about being raped.

Reply 186

User414413

18

Original post by buchanan700

To the OP: Absolutely vile. Awful. Hope he gets whats coming to him. Sadly it was only in 1991 that rape within marriage was made illegal...no wonder so many men feel 'entitled'.
All my thoughts to this poor woman.

His been cleared hence now an innocent man so I don't think he deserves anything coming to him.

Reply 187

OP

Original post by Clip

First, that doesn't sound like an accurate report of your murder case.

Second, "not guilty" does indeed mean that you didn't commit the crime.

Third, where are you saying this apparent miscarriage of justice is coming from? This was a jury trial. Are you saying that those jurors were wrong?

You just said the jury was wrong on the footballer case! Shows your bias

all the details can be found, he was punched once, ran upstairs, ran back down to kitchen, got a knife and stabbed the lad 12 times.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/burnleypendlerossendale/9674859.Man_who_killed_Haslingden_teenager_had__personality_disorder___/

i honestly thought you had to be insane to get off with murder on these circumstances, but seems not.

face it, some jurors havnt got a clue

Reply 188

OP

Original post by Clip

First, that doesn't sound like an accurate report of your murder case.

Second, "not guilty" does indeed mean that you didn't commit the crime.

Third, where are you saying this apparent miscarriage of justice is coming from? This was a jury trial. Are you saying that those jurors were wrong?

No, not guilty does not mean that. Look at all the cases where the person has been acquitted then found guilty on new evidence years later.

Reply 189

Original post by gemnomnom

Haha. Kinda this

Marry me

Reply 190

User414413

18

Original post by kunoichi

I blame rapists. If no one ever raped anyone, no man would run the risk of having his name blackened by the few disgusting women who lie about being raped.

Or blame the actual people not feminist or rapist rather false rape accusers. If there were no rapist then the man would still run the risk of having his name blackened by the false accusation. Are you telling me that just because no one ever forced someone to have sex with them and cause them psychological damage would make it any less shocking and disgusting? It would still cause a negative reaction from society hence nothing to do with rapist. More the actual concept of rape. Kinda like even if there were o genocidal maniacs there would still be shocking and negative reaction at the thought of genocide, possibly even more because it's the first time people are hearing of such a case.

Reply 191

Original post by Architecture-er

The ironic thing is, he would've gotten more sex overall if he didn't rape her..

Reply 192

Anna150

5

Original post by Simplicity

Court get it wrong. The thing is nothing will happen to the girl even if she cried rape and was found lying. That why rape trials are a joke, the girl has no consequence for crying rape.

You can't just claim someone and destroy there live and have no consequences. If you claimed someone tried to murder you and you was found to be lying you would go to jail, but rape is difference for some reason. You get a pat on the back and everyone still believes the girl and the man is still hated.

If you do insurance fraud there are punishment. Not for rape charges. Literally there are very little laws you can lie to destroy someone life and if you get caught lying nothing happens to you.

I agree that it's a terrible thing to lie about and i also know someone whose name was dragged through the mud and almost went to prison because a girl who consented to sex regretted it the morning after.

BUT it's a very dificult crime to get a conviction for because it usually comes down to one person's word against another. To convict someone the Jury has to be CERTAIN that the defendant is guilty. How can they be CERTAIN when the only evidence they have one witness saying "I didn't consent."

Nothing happens to the accusor (unless they admit they lied) because they're not the one on trial! Just because someone is found innocent it doesn't mean they are, it just means that there wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 193

Original post by Phalanges

It is truly ****ing terrifying how quickly people are willing to cast aside the ideology of innocent until proven guilty.

Jesus christ people, show some restraint before organising your witch hunts. You are damning this man based on the biased reporting of a prosecuting statement. It's entirely possible that this man did do what has been said. But that isn't a fact at this point, and none of you have the necessary evidence to decide on that now.

There's a good chance some of you may end up on a jury one day. And there's also a chance that some of you may end up accused of a crime you didn't commit. If so, I hope for your sakes that the people who decide your fate show more of an open mind.

"Yes, we haven't heard the defense yet..............but he looks kinda rapey"

Reply 194

buchanan700

16

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

His been cleared hence now an innocent man so I don't think he deserves anything coming to him.

Regardless, the guys comment was disgusting.

Reply 195

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Every thread I see aspiringlawstudent posting in he talks like a knob. Can you imagine having him as your solicitor lol.

"I rule that Bart Simpson is clearly the biological son of C Montgomery Burns"

Reply 196

RedTiger

Original post by Darth Vader 7

It's quite sickening that such medieval actions still occur in the 21st Century. It's ridiculous.

People are people as have always been people.

Except before they were people.

Reply 197

Arekkusu

16

Original post by betaglucowhat

Around 8% of university aged men will admit to committing acts against a woman meeting the legal definition of rape in an anonymous survey if the word "rape" is not explicitly used.

Nearly 2 in 20 of the guys you see walking around a campus will have raped someone. You probably know some of them, at the very least you will have been in group conversations with them present. A number of them read your post and are reading my post now.

You just blamed a rape victim for being raped. A woman did not want to have sex and a man forced himself on her and raped her, repeatedly. You said it was her fault. The expectation of sex is not an excuse, a feeling of entitlement to sex is not an excuse. She was raped. Several times. And you blame her for it, not the man who raped her.

In coming to the defense of a convicted rapist and by blaming the victim of a rape for being raped, you are normalising rape. You are making it seem acceptable. Those men I talked about, the rapists that will never see their day in court, are reading what you are writing and having their abhorrent attitudes about women confirmed. Men who have raped women are reading your words blaming a rape victim for being raped and nodding, "yes, it was her fault", and feeling like they did nothing wrong.

Stop being a massive tool.

edit: FYI to all the potential rapists in the thread, if you ever find yourself in a relationship where your partner doesn't want to have sex with you: please don't rape them. If they don't want to have sex with you regularly enough that you are dissatisfied with the relationship: discuss it with them, please don't rape them. If you cannot sort your problem out together and you find the lack of sex is ruining the relationship for you: break up with them, please don't rape them. Above all: please do not rape people.

It's grossly insulting to address "potential rapists" - in feminist discourse, this means "men" - so facetiously. You know full well that most of those 8% of university-aged men were admitting to nothing more than having sex with a girl while she was drunk after a night out (I wonder why they chose university-aged men, eh?)

We know any intoxication means it is legally rape, to remove all doubt if such a case comes before the courts, and this is how it should be. But in real life most people get a bit drunk before they have sex with strangers and there is a world of difference between assaulting someone who is practically passed out and having sex with someone who is more receptive because they're drunk.

You're right in that most men will have done the latter - as will most women, do not forget that it works both ways - but I can't imagine any man doing the former.

I am fully on your side against that poster's attitude and also against that of the rapist we're talking about. But that doesn't mean you can use it to promulgate alarmist figures and insult decent upstanding men.

Reply 198

OP

Original post by Arekkusu

It's grossly insulting to address "potential rapists" - in feminist discourse, this means "men" - so facetiously. You know full well that most of those 8% of university-aged men were admitting to nothing more than having sex with a girl while she was drunk after a night out (I wonder why they chose university-aged men, eh?)

We know any intoxication means it is legally rape, to remove all doubt if such a case comes before the courts, and this is how it should be. But in real life most people get a bit drunk before they have sex with strangers and there is a world of difference between assaulting someone who is practically passed out and having sex with someone who is more receptive because they're drunk.

You're right in that most men will have done the latter - as will most women, do not forget that it works both ways - but I can't imagine any man doing the former.

I am fully on your side against that poster's attitude and also against that of the rapist we're talking about. But that doesn't mean you can use it to promulgate alarmist figures and insult decent upstanding men.

no law says having sex with someone who was drunk is rape. How do you know 'full well' thats what they were admitting to?

Any intoxication does not mean it was legally rape, its whether the person consented, if they are paralytic they cannot consent.

Reply 199