Man Has Perfect Defence to Rape Allegation, Still Gets Charged

[Bald1]

To the handful of lawyers participating in this thread -

Do you guys get anything beneficial out of conversations such as this one? As in, does hearing arguments from practitioners from different places, random sherdumbasses and all sorts in between help you sharpen your skills?

These are the random thoughts ratlling around in my head late at night. Lol.

 

[floivanus]

Whats the age of consent there?

Canada is 16,

 

[ScottE]

Canada is 16,

But the drinking age sure isn't.

 

[Stranger Come Knocking]

A 32 year old banged a 16 and 17 year old and TS thinks this is the perfect defense of rape......

 

[floivanus]

But the drinking age sure isn't.

Ah yes the old “but the drinking age isn’t”

Like “why are you able to buy a gun when you’re 18, but not drink till you’re 21?” I hate that argument, age of consent in Canada (and quite a few US states) is 16, whether its “moral” to people’s standards isn’t the issue, that’s just the fact of it

 

[glenwo2]

And they should complete the trail....

 

[glenwo2]

Ok read the case. TS is an absolute idiot. The 2 girls are 17 and 16. Classic case of popular older girl who sleeps around taking a naive inexperienced younger girl with her. The guy was 32 years old and he is having sex with 17 year old and put pressure on 16year old virgin girl. Fuck him.....offcourse the 17 year old is gonna say it was consensual because he played big role in it as well

17 and 16?

On second though.....FUCK THIS GUY.

 

[vengeful]

A 32 year old getting 2 chicks half his age drunk to have sex with him? Lol pathetic

 

[VivaRevolution]

He should be charged. There is a material dispute of fact. It's not like the witness's testimony to the contrary was the original evidentiary foundation of the charge: in that case, a charge would be improper.

You think the testimony of one witness should preclude charging in (presumed) light of other evidence corroborating the victim's account? When has that ever been the case?

What evidence?

That they had sex?

That isnt a crime and it isn't in dispute.

 

[RockstarChris]

the biggest problem in this guys life is he had a threesome? sign me up

 

[Trotsky]

What evidence?

That they had sex?

Huh?

(a) Proof of sex + accusation of coercion/absence of consent = enough to bring charges and survive summary judgment. Usually, that's all the evidence that can be proffered in a rape case, which is why they are so difficult to litigate. Even when the victim immediately goes to the hospital for an examination ("rape kit") they usually only serve to prove that intercourse took place, and have little bearing on consent.

(b) From perusing the Reason for Decision, there is more than enough uncertainty and ambiguity to bring the charges: from the friend's initial account that the victim withdrew consent, to the recollection of the victim trembling afterwards, to the friend's unwillingness to testify, to the personal impressions of credibility by the factfinder.


The fact that this thread even exists is silly. The minute the friend said that the victim withdrew consent and the defendant kept going, charges became absolutely proper.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

what is the most perfect defence you can imagine to an allegation of rape?

"I'm trans."

 

[Gervais]

Huh?

(a) Proof of sex + accusation of coercion/absence of consent = enough to bring charges and survive summary judgment. Usually, that's all the evidence that can be proffered in a rape case, which is why they are so difficult to litigate. Even when the victim immediately goes to the hospital for an examination ("rape kit") they usually only serve to prove that intercourse took place, and have little bearing on consent.

(b) From perusing the Reason for Decision, there is more than enough uncertainty and ambiguity to bring the charges: from the friend's initial account that the victim withdrew consent, to the recollection of the victim trembling afterwards, to the friend's unwillingness to testify, to the personal impressions of credibility by the factfinder.


The fact that this thread even exists is silly. The minute the friend said that the victim withdrew consent and the defendant kept going, charges became absolutely proper.

Yeah the friend painted a very clear picture of the girl crying and not wanting to continue and him ignoring it. I just dont get how you can give that statemet and then say oh actually something completely happened.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Huh?

(a) Proof of sex + accusation of coercion/absence of consent = enough to bring charges and survive summary judgment. Usually, that's all the evidence that can be proffered in a rape case, which is why they are so difficult to litigate. Even when the victim immediately goes to the hospital for an examination ("rape kit") they usually only serve to prove that intercourse took place, and have little bearing on consent.

(b) From perusing the Reason for Decision, there is more than enough uncertainty and ambiguity to bring the charges: from the friend's initial account that the victim withdrew consent, to the recollection of the victim trembling afterwards, to the friend's unwillingness to testify, to the personal impressions of credibility by the factfinder.


The fact that this thread even exists is silly. The minute the friend said that the victim withdrew consent and the defendant kept going, charges became absolutely proper.

It is still stupid. The other witness recanted.

There is no way this ends in a prosecution. Why are they wasting the resources?

 

[Trotsky]

It is still stupid. The other witness recanted.

There is no way this ends in a prosecution. Why are they wasting the resources?

Because a reasonable finder of fact could find different conclusions.

Your position would make it basically impossible to litigate rapes.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Because a reasonable finder of fact could find different conclusions.

Your position would make it basically impossible to litigate rapes.

No. You have a 3rd party witness. No jury is going to give a guilty verdict.

Shit is stupid, and a waste of resources. It wreaks of politics.

 

[ScottE]

Ah yes the old “but the drinking age isn’t”

Like “why are you able to buy a gun when you’re 18, but not drink till you’re 21?” I hate that argument, age of consent in Canada (and quite a few US states) is 16, whether its “moral” to people’s standards isn’t the issue, that’s just the fact of it

Yeah you clearly missed the point.

The age of consent may be 16, but can you consent if intoxicated? Via alcohol supplied by the 32 accused of rape. So you can cling to the age of consent but he still supplied alcohol to minors with the intent of getting them drunk so he could fuck a 16 year old.

 

[MeWithInfinityGauntlet]

32 year old fucks 16 and 17 year olds. Guilty.

^Jealous.

 

[irish_thug]

^Jealous.

When I was 17, maybe. Not at my age.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

In the future, dating will require a lawyer and we have to sign consent forms and stuff.