- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 17,366
- Reaction score
- 14,834
It’s not on me to address her allegations as fishy. It’s on Conor to prove he didn’t tape that woman. By law if she can prove she was drunk there is no amount of fishy in the world that can save this. You don’t understand the law so it has you defending the valor of a man who put himself in those shoes. There is a reason anyone with sense will tell you don’t be rich famous and take random women to public bathrooms with goons watching the door. What part of that stupid shit would you like me to defend? The part where he raped her? Well nobody knows what happened in that bathroom we can only see he placed himself in a situation he now needs to explain himself. NOT ME NOT YOU. He does
I think Conor is pretty much a piece of shit and wouldn't at all doubt these allegations are true but for someone saying others don't understand the law while also stating it's on Conor to prove he didn't rape that woman is pretty funny. Innocent until proven guilty is the legal standard of criminal cases. Conor doesn't have to prove anything in a court of law. It's up to the prosecutor to prove that he raped that woman not vice versa. Now if she pursues civil action that's a different story. The legal standard changes to a "preponderance of the evidence" in that scenario.