News *** Conor McGregor Found Civilly Liable for 2018 Sexual Assault MEGA THREAD ***

[pātrēärkē]

Civil court found that Conor raped her. He, like you, argued that he didn't rape her. He, like you, lost the argument. Now he is paying damages for having raped her, and he is paying her legal fees for having raped her.

The third and fourth paragraphs of the snippets I quoted address that. I'm not making an argument for the guy I'm mocking in my avatar, simply presenting the facts.

Cleary you and a few other posters are deeply invested in this being something else (for whatever reason).

 

[El Panteron]

I understand in this day of #metoo that a woman's accountability is a patriarchal construct

Love how you started with "I understand"

 

[fortheo]

The third and fourth paragraphs of the snippets I quoted address that. I'm not making an argument for the guy I'm mocking in my avatar, simply presenting the facts.

Cleary you and a few other posters are deeply invested in this being something else (for whatever reason).

You drew incorrect conclusions on the case and on the verdict of the case based off of how the damages were awarded to the victim. Do you realize that just yesterday the judge of the case himself addressed your dumb argument and dismissed it? Frankly, he shouldn't have had to spell it out for people, but then again, people like you do exist......

You clearly can't tell fact from fiction if it hit you in the face.

 

[pātrēärkē]

Do you realize that just yesterday the judge of the case himself addressed your dumb ass rape apologetic semantic argument that put forward and dismissed it?

You clearly can't tell fact from fiction if it hit you in the face.

What was the apology?

There was no criminal or civil charge of rape. That's a fact, not a semantic nor an opinion

According to reports published by MailOnline and The Journal, this decision was explained to the jury during the hearing, with former DPP Claire Loftus twice concluding that the prosecution wouldn't be able to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' that a crime had been committed.

A letter from the DDP's office added that the police file had been examined by a lawyer and senior counsel, with the letter reading: "We considered a number of offences, among which were rape and assault causing harm.

"The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect did it. The suspect does not have to prove their innocence."

"It is not a question of who we as prosecutors believe," the second letter read. "Our job is to assess whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction on the basis of all of the evidence."

prosecutors also mentioned that the accuser was quoted as asking detectives if they believed that McGregor “would like to ‘settle’ or ‘pay her off’ if she did not pursue charges.”

And personal attacks don't make your opinions any more valid. How ironic that people like you always resort to them though

 

[fortheo]

What was the apology?

There was no criminal or civil charge of rape. That's a fact, not a semantic nor an opinion





And personal attacks don't make your opinions any more valid. How ironic that people like you always resort to them though

First of all, I was specifically pointing out your argument about how damages were awarded. It's the argument you directed me to when you pointed to the third and fourth paragraphs in your argument that I originally responded to. The judge of the case himself dismissed that argument.

Now you're back to talking about criminal cases. Why do you keep bringing up criminal cases when this wasn't one?

It was a civil assault case, an assault case where the judge repeatedly told the jury that RAPE is a form of assault and it is the form of assault they were dealing with in that case. The jury sided with the plaintif, nikita, and decided that Conor mcgregor assaulted her by raping her. He lost that case. The jury agreed with the plaintif that conor mcgregor raped her.

Do you agree that that happened? Or do you continue to act like nothing happened at all simply because it wasn't a criminal case?

 

[blaseblase]

Civil court found that Conor raped her. He, like you, argued that he didn't rape her. He, like you, lost the argument. Now he is paying damages for having raped her, and he is paying her legal fees for having raped her.

Yet they found the other guy that had sex with her right afterwards didn't rape her. A bit strange, no?

 

[fortheo]

Yet they found the other guy that had sex with her right afterwards didn't rape her. A bit strange, no?

The jury didn't believe James lawrence had sex with her at all. The judge just clarified this yesterday.

 

[JBJ was here]

Yet they found the other guy that had sex with her right afterwards didn't rape her. A bit strange, no?

The stupid! It BURNS!

 

[blaseblase]

The jury didn't believe James lawrence had sex with her at all. The judge just clarified this yesterday.

He literally admitted to it. This is backed up by the testimony of Hand's own coworker, Danielle Kealey. They double teamed both of them.

 

[fortheo]

He literally admitted to it. This is backed up by the testimony of Hand's own coworker, Danielle Kealey. They double teamed both of them.

Yes, James Lawrence said he slept with her. He gave his side of the story. The jury didn't buy it and do not believe that James Lawrence slept with Nikita hand AT ALL. The judge specified this yesterday.

 

[pātrēärkē]

First of all, I was specififically pointing out your argument about how damages were awarded. It's the argument you directed to me when you pointed to the third and fourth paragraphs in your dumb argument that I originally responded to. The judge of the case himself dismissed that argument.

Now you're back to talking about criminal cases. Why do you keep bringing up criminal cases when this wasn't one?

It was a civil assault case, an assault case where the judge repeatedly told the jury that RAPE is a form of assault and it is the form of assault they were dealing with in that case. The jury sided with the plaintif, nikita, and decided that Conor mcgregor assaulted her by raping her. He lost that case. The jury found agreed with the plaintif that he raped her.

You need to accept this. You can cling on to your whole, "it wasn't a criminal case thus there was no conviction!" stuff all you want. You can continue to basically ignore civil cases in general, which seems to be what you're doing, but for the rest of us, the civil case happened and in the civil case a jury decided he raped a girl.

How many times are you going to edit your posts? And they still show a complete lack of comprehension of facts.

Before you edited you asked "why do I keep bringing up a criminal case" yet what you responded to was me quoting the civil case. There was no criminal case and the prosecutors explained why, I quoted that as well.

Again the third and fourth paragraph of my original post illustrate what damages were awarded for. Nowhere did the jury decide that he raped her. They even felt he was not liable for aggravated or punitive damages (you might want to look up what those represent).

Those are the facts of the case and no amount of projection nor a lack of comprehension will change that.

 

[fortheo]

How many times are you going to edit your posts? And they still show a complete lack of comprehension of facts.

Before you edited you asked "why do I keep bringing up a criminal case" yet what you responded to was me quoting the civil case. There was no criminal case and the prosecutors explained why, I quoted that as well.

Again the third and fourth paragraph of my original post illustrate what damages were awarded for. Nowhere did the jury decide that he raped her. They even felt he was not liable for aggravated or punitive damages (you might want to look up what those represent).

Those are the facts of the case and no amount of projection nor a lack of comprehension will change that.

I'll edit as much as like sherbro.

The criminal case argument is irrelevant. Everyone knows this wasn't a criminal case. I've never once argued that it was a criminal case.

Your argument about damages continues to be stupid -- You do not draw conclusions about whether or not he raped her based off how the damages were awarded. They had a whole case to decide whether he raped her, and they decided he did. They only got to the point where they could award any damages at all BECAUSE the jury found he raped her. The judge shut down your argument based off how the damages were awarded yesterday. Do you disagree with the judge? he said himself that the damages awarded should not cast doubt on what the jury found. Do you know what the jury found? The found that conor lost a civil assault case where the assault in question was RAPE. How did he lose that if they didn't find he raped her? please tell me.

Those are the facts of the case, and no amount of repeating lies will change that. Conor will be paying damages and legal fees to the woman that a jury found he raped.


Really looking forward to your non answers and dogmatic adherence to your stupidity, bud.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

There was no conviction of rape, criminal or civil. And Lawrence was found not guilty of anything.

I didn't say Conor was convicted of rape, I called him a rapist.

I didn't say Lawrence was found guilty of anything, just that his story was obviously bullshit, which is also the belief of the court findings.

If you read my post, you'd see what specific counter arguments I was addressing and which one I wasn't, and that's the one you ironically flocked to

He literally admitted to it. This is backed up by the testimony of Hand's own coworker, Danielle Kealey. They double teamed both of them.

It was JUST explained to you in the post you replied to. The stories were lockstep and unbelievable.

 

[burningspear]

Perception is everything, regardless of wording gymnastics, the world perceives him as a rapist.

 

[blaseblase]

Yes, James Lawrence said he slept with her. He gave his side of the story. The jury didn't buy it and do not believe that James Lawrence slept with Nikita hand AT ALL. The judge specified this yesterday.

You are aware she literally tried to sue James Lawrence for rape, right? So 3 out of the 4 people involved can recall Hand having sex with Lawrence, except for the one who was drunk and on coke, who later sued him for that exact thing. But sure, it never happened.

 

[blaseblase]

It was JUST explained to you in the post you replied to. The stories were lockstep and unbelievable.

You are aware she literally tried to sue James Lawrence for rape, right? So 3 out of the 4 people involved can recall Hand having sex with Lawrence, except for the one who was drunk and on coke, who later sued him for that exact thing. Where does the unbelievable part come in?

 

[Ares Black]

Yet they found the other guy that had sex with her right afterwards didn't rape her. A bit strange, no?

I don't think you have really been paying attention to this case TBH.

 

[Ares Black]

You are aware she literally tried to sue James Lawrence for rape, right? So 3 out of the 4 people involved can recall Hand having sex with Lawrence, except for the one who was drunk and on coke, who later sued him for that exact thing. Where does the unbelievable part come in?

You have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here

 

[Ares Black]

Yes, James Lawrence said he slept with her. He gave his side of the story. The jury didn't buy it and do not believe that James Lawrence slept with Nikita hand AT ALL. The judge specified this yesterday.

It's not actually a particularly difficult concept. I wonder why people are struggling with it.

 

[Ares Black]

To be clear


If you think that Nikita Hand had sex with James Lawrence after she "had sex" with Conor McGregor, then you believe his version of events.

If you believe the testimony of James Lawrence, you might be even more retarded than he is.