Yikes...
03-23-2018 | 10:35 AM
#491
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,479
Likes: 1,050
And yet, if it was the other way around, you'd probably be leading the riot. But because one of the boys is being targeted by an entitled minority, she is just trying to bring the system down.
03-23-2018 | 11:22 AM
#492
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Precisely. Especially after all of the cases of women lying about it and ruining men and their careers forever.
03-23-2018 | 11:51 AM
#493
Junior Senior
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,851
Likes: 1
From: Whiskey Papa
I'm confused. We're judging whether a woman is attractive or not in an alleged rape case? Wow! I'm willing to bet the ones judging (one way or the other) are NOTHING to look at themselves and probably have "nothing" to offer.
Also as someone said, it's considered rape if she wasn't able to consent, whether or not he drugged her OR she drank too much.
Do you clowns have wives/daughters/sisters? Doesn't sound like it, BUT if you do, shame on you!
Also as someone said, it's considered rape if she wasn't able to consent, whether or not he drugged her OR she drank too much.
Do you clowns have wives/daughters/sisters? Doesn't sound like it, BUT if you do, shame on you!
03-23-2018 | 12:18 PM
#494
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
I'm confused. We're judging whether a woman is attractive or not in an alleged rape case? Wow! I'm willing to bet the ones judging (one way or the other) are NOTHING to look at themselves and probably have "nothing" to offer.
Also as someone said, it's considered rape if she wasn't able to consent, whether or not he drugged her OR she drank too much.
Do you clowns have wives/daughters/sisters? Doesn't sound like it, BUT if you do, shame on you!
Also as someone said, it's considered rape if she wasn't able to consent, whether or not he drugged her OR she drank too much.
Do you clowns have wives/daughters/sisters? Doesn't sound like it, BUT if you do, shame on you!
03-23-2018 | 12:33 PM
#495
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 1
From: Downwind, headed straight for the rocks, shanghaied aboard the ship of fools.
What is wrong with you? The guy DESERVES the presumption of innocence. Nothing you yourself wouldn’t demand in his position. It’s one of the greatest rights we have and one of the biggest bricks in our country’s foundation of liberty. That’s all we are saying. The people convicting him on this forum are disgraceful. Let the facts come out. If they merit a trial and a subsequent conviction based on facts then so be it.
03-23-2018 | 12:52 PM
#496
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
From: Driving to work & Looking Left @ the Surf!!
What is wrong with you? The guy DESERVES the presumption of innocence. Nothing you yourself wouldn’t demand in his position. It’s one of the greatest rights we have and one of the biggest bricks in our country’s foundation of liberty. That’s all we are saying. The people convicting him on this forum are disgraceful. Let the facts come out. If they merit a trial and a subsequent conviction based on facts then so be it.
Baja.
03-23-2018 | 12:57 PM
#497
Banned
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
What is wrong with you? The guy DESERVES the presumption of innocence. Nothing you yourself wouldn’t demand in his position. It’s one of the greatest rights we have and one of the biggest bricks in our country’s foundation of liberty. That’s all we are saying. The people convicting him on this forum are disgraceful. Let the facts come out. If they merit a trial and a subsequent conviction based on facts then so be it.
It will be her testimony vs his testimony. And that's it. So everyone screaming to wait for evidence is basically saying that her claim isn't good enough. And too many people are willing to dismiss and poke holes in her testimony, which mean this dude gets off free automatically.
I understand your desire for due process, but there's not much more to it. Her testimony and his testimony will be the limitations of this trial.
03-23-2018 | 01:04 PM
#498
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Look. You all are waiting on this ironclad evidence to magically appear, but the fact of the matter is that there will never be any.
It will be her testimony vs his testimony. And that's it. So everyone screaming to wait for evidence is basically saying that her claim isn't good enough. And too many people are willing to dismiss and poke holes in her testimony, which mean this dude gets off free automatically.
I understand your desire for due process, but there's not much more to it. Her testimony and his testimony will be the limitations of this trial.
It will be her testimony vs his testimony. And that's it. So everyone screaming to wait for evidence is basically saying that her claim isn't good enough. And too many people are willing to dismiss and poke holes in her testimony, which mean this dude gets off free automatically.
I understand your desire for due process, but there's not much more to it. Her testimony and his testimony will be the limitations of this trial.
03-23-2018 | 01:06 PM
#499
Banned
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
If it goes to trial (I would be surprised if it did) there would be much more that his and her testimony. What did the hotel staff see, what was on the surveillance footage, what did the FA who called the FODO see and say, what did the FODO say in the voice mail, what did she say to the ALPA rep that she called, etc. Much more than just their testimony that would be presented in a trial.
03-23-2018 | 01:11 PM
#500
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
Does everyone understand this is a civil case involving AK and the F/O where the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”? Presumption of innocence, reasonable of doubt, guilty or not guilty have nothing to do with the suit.
GF
GF
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
