Skinny jeans means rape couldn't happen

Can we all agree IF she said NO and he proceeded it was RAPE and that the "skinny jeans" defense is a crock of shit?

 

:iagree:

 

:iagree:

 

:iagree:

 

So we can assume that if he is guilty, anything used to defend him is invalid. That's agreeable, but the thing is you don't know if he's guilty. That's the entire point of the case.

I'm still waiting for that quote.

 

True enough. The problem with jury trials as I see it...

Generally there's one side supported truth and one side seeking to confuse the issue and with skillful enough "lawyering", figuring out which is which becomes anyone's guess.

 

The medical evidence seems to point to the contrary and even the judge agreed. A judge could in theory over turn a jury's verdict but they're generally very wary of doing that. The point is an asinine defense worked once, a defense that is built in idiocy. Lawyers will keep using it now and if you get a jury of fools again it's going to keep working. You can no longer be raped if you're wearing tight jeans, which last I checked would be mean the good deal of the female population can in fact not be raped because some jurors suck at taking off their girlfriend's pants.

 

Agree with you. That is a major issue as the precedent is set and can be used again.

 

You're absolutely right. I do agree that it sets a dangerous precedent.

 

:banghead: Too funny, as now it could set a dangerous precedent. I do believe that was the main concern of quite a few posters, myself included.

 

That's the part that scares me, its such an insane verdict. Whether or not the guy is guilty, it still seems like a dirty tactic. I just hope that this case won't be a general guild line for rape victims wearing skinny jeans. That's a dirty tactic!

But who knows, the newspaper could be taken from one quote. We all know how the news like to read one sentence and then make a story about they issue. If only they knew how to do their homework!

 

Yeah, I feel like it's not the whole story, but even the fact that it is PART of the story is scary enough. What kind of clothing someone was wearing should not really come into it, in my opinion.

 

I agree with that, but lawyers are dirty skeeze bags.

 

I never argued that point. I always agreed it could be a dangerous precedent.