Oh, so it's 'either/or' with you is it? There's room for question if little else with Derf's scenario and obviously there's nothing in it that resembles "evidence" in it that would justify a conviction. How have you not got this yet?
Gonna be replying to yourself then are you? If you'd read things through properly instead of inventing your own moronic "assessments" about what other people believe in regards to the topic you'd have had your answer multiple times over.
Yes. It's either "guilty" or it's "not guilty."
I was considering this the other day when I was doing yard work and meant to come back to it. Rape is a form of assault. Imagine going to the authorities and saying that you were assaulted by someone - a neighbor, a friend, a relative, a stranger - but there is no evidence of the assault - no bruises, no broken bones, no bloody lip, no skin under your fingernails from attempting to resist the assault, no record of it, video or otherwise, and of course the perpetrator denies it.
Yes. Correct. And yet it certainly is an actual crime. Being threatened, intimidated, menaced, these are, when credible, assault in the common law sense I believe, I think today someone actually has to touch you, but either way, if there's no obvious physical evidence (like, if there's no "smoke" then there's no fire), that is categorically 100% unrelated to whether it's still a crime, and that you should stop.
Did you think that you could just snip a quote (again) and pretend that you've not made a complete clown of yourself in doing so (again)?
Of course there is. There is no evidence of rape, so the verdict should be "not guilty."
It isn't, remotely. Derf's scenario wouldn't have even made it to court and if you actually read people's posts properly you'd know that nobody would advocate the man being found guilty based on his lame hypothetical. Cases need evidence so no verdict even required. Maybe if you spent less time quote mining and making dumb assertions you'd have got the memo.
"Not anything" then. From the get go it was proof that was required had you been reading along. Lame scenarios don't warrant a verdict as there can't even be one.
As you seem to be stuck on loop let me make the clear even clearer - even to you. Cases require evidence to get to court in our legal systems and the likes of Derf's feeble scenario don't count, remotely. If only you put so much effort into taking the guy to task who wouldn't consider it rape if a husband did force himself on his wife...
Judges or juries convict not random people , you dork.
Wily little guy.Never, in 18 long years
You do it naturally. No trying needed.
So, "not guilty" then, right?
No. At this point you're either thick or willfully dishonest or both. There's no "verdict" in this as as explained numerous times already. In order for a verdict there'd have to be sufficient evidence in order for a case to make it to court. Now, you do get that right? Right? That ain't gonna be happening with Derf's scenario is it? You get that too, right? If I'm walking you through this too fast then let me know.
Nope.So, "not guilty," right?
Nope. The scenario proposed a trial. Regardless of how unlikely you think that might be, to respond sensibly, you have to address the scenario as presented. Or you could just ignore it.
Now, you do get that right? Right? If I'm walking you through this too fast then let me know.
So, "not guilty," right?
Oh, I've been quite clear for quite some time now.
