[afronoob]

Its true-no man in the Anglosphere can get justice in a rape claim: You can tell right off the bat the bitch was a straight hoe.

Quote:

But when his friend left the apartment at 7.00am the following morning he went into her room, woke her up and began his rapes

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z1V760hSVv

[Roosh]

Questions I have:

Quote:

forced the complainant to perform oral sex

Did he threaten her with a weapon to prevent her chomping down his dick?

Did she yell or scream to draw attention from neighbors?

In seven hours he must've used the bathroom at least once. Why didn't she escape? Was she tied down? If she claims she was, were their burn marks around her wrists?

[stein]

I wondered about these exact questions in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case when that hotel maid said he forced oral sex upon her.

If he was forcing his dick into your mouth and you wanted to get away, why didn't you just bite on it - it IS the most sensitive part of the male body. Or did you find that you actually enjoyed the taste of forced cock?! Incredulous!

[oldnemesis]

(08-15-2011 10:54 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

Its true-no man in the Anglosphere can get justice in a rape claim: You can tell right off the bat the bitch was a straight hoe.

Why are you saying "fake"? The newspaper lists some facts, such as:

Kenyan-born Robert Kariuki attacked the woman in her bed, stuffing a teddy bear in her mouth and covering her face with a pillow after she had spent the night making love with his friend.
He threatened to kill his victim and stopped her from leaving her room to even use the toilet during a ‘sustained’ series of seven rapes over several hours.

If this is not rape, then I don't know what it is. A threat to kill alone (coming from an Army soldier) would be enough to qualify it as rape in pretty much every country I know.

[Jason Zee]

(08-15-2011 10:54 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

Its true-no man in the Anglosphere can get justice in a rape claim: You can tell right off the bat the bitch was a straight hoe.

Quote:

But when his friend left the apartment at 7.00am the following morning he went into her room, woke her up and began his rapes

This story smells real fishy. There are a lot of women out there that cry rape falsely. Once a man is labeled a rapist or even accused of being one his reputation is forever tainted. I want to start seeing some of these women persecuted!!

[Samseau]

(08-15-2011 07:51 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-15-2011 10:54 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

Its true-no man in the Anglosphere can get justice in a rape claim: You can tell right off the bat the bitch was a straight hoe.

Why are you saying "fake"? The newspaper lists some facts, such as:

Kenyan-born Robert Kariuki attacked the woman in her bed, stuffing a teddy bear in her mouth and covering her face with a pillow after she had spent the night making love with his friend.
He threatened to kill his victim and stopped her from leaving her room to even use the toilet during a ‘sustained’ series of seven rapes over several hours.

If this is not rape, then I don't know what it is. A threat to kill alone (coming from an Army soldier) would be enough to qualify it as rape in pretty much every country I know.

allegations

[afronoob]

(08-15-2011 11:03 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Questions I have:

Quote:

forced the complainant to perform oral sex

Did he threaten her with a weapon to prevent her chomping down his dick?

Did she yell or scream to draw attention from neighbors?

In seven hours he must've used the bathroom at least once. Why didn't she escape? Was she tied down? If she claims she was, were their burn marks around her wrists?

EXACTLY! Its impossible to have raped her 7 times without injuries. It reminds me of the DSK case. Had that bitches inner hoe not sabotaged the case by getting taped bragging about a potential windfall to her boyfriend in custody it would have gone much worse.
This guy doesn't have the best investigators or lawyers;now look-10 years! Actually,am beginning to understand the popularity of sex tapes as evidence.

[oldnemesis]

(08-15-2011 10:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

allegations

Not necessary. Maybe someone overheard it, or he admitted it himself. All I know that the court should have had some serious evidence to give him ten years in prison, and allegations alone won't make it through the appeal.

[Nonpareil]

I went to school with a girl who twice...not once, TWICE falsely accused guys of rape; seriously, both times she got a kit done, both times they came back negative.

One guy was a former roommate who had to move out (finding a new student home in the middle of February can be kind of a bitch), the other dropped out entirely.

And of course, she paid zero penalty for pretty much ruining the academic careers and reputations of two men.

[Samseau]

(08-16-2011 09:03 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-15-2011 10:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

allegations

Not necessary. Maybe someone overheard it, or he admitted it himself. All I know that the court should have had some serious evidence to give him ten years in prison, and allegations alone won't make it through the appeal.

It's funny that you think our justice system is fair

[oldnemesis]

(08-17-2011 09:35 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's funny that you think our justice system is fair

This is my opinion. See, the difference between you and me that you seem to read the news and blindly believe in all the shit written there - and modern "journalists" are more concerned about making the flashy headlines than real reporting; most of them have never read the actual court case they report on. However I try to look up the particular court case, and read the decision. It is much less exciting than watching some stupid actor playing judge on TV, but it gives you REAL understanding how the justice system work.

And yes, there are some glitches (like SCOTUS conservative bias), but mostly the system is at large is quite fair and balanced. As I said before, a lot of people have problems with justice system or think it is unfair because they have the wrong idea about how it works, or how it should work. I've appeared at several hearings (mostly traffic and small claims), and it is amazing how unprepared the vast majority of plaintiffs/defendants come to the court room. Do it yourself, just go to the nearest court which hears small cases (not every court does, so you need to check), get in and listen for a couple of house. This may be the most eye-opening experience in your life.

[oldnemesis]

(08-17-2011 02:54 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  

And of course, she paid zero penalty for pretty much ruining the academic careers and reputations of two men.

So did any of those guys press criminal charges on her (false crime allegation is a crime against justice), or at least filed a civil suit?
If yes, what was the outcome?
If not, do you know why?

[Nonpareil]

(08-17-2011 04:49 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 02:54 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  

And of course, she paid zero penalty for pretty much ruining the academic careers and reputations of two men.

So did any of those guys press criminal charges on her (false crime allegation is a crime against justice), or at least filed a civil suit?
If yes, what was the outcome?
If not, do you know why?

I'm not totally sure how far it went, I haven't heard from her in 3 years and only really in crew because one of my friends really wanted to fuck her (loath to admit, she was a pretty attractive petite blonde, definitely a hard 8 and definitely a girl that, if I didn't know her and how she was [a rich, spoiled sociopath] I'd make a legit play to fuck).

I know the guy that dropped out vanished, but I never heard about the former roomie.

Really though, if you come from an average family and are already putting yourself into huge debt going to university in the first place what can you do? Hire a good lawyer and wait for trial? A good lawyer costs about $300 an hour and you can be billed for up to 70 hours while awaiting trial. Girl was also young, pretty and from money; so you can either forfeit your reputation by doing nothing, or stand to lose $10,000+ defending yourself in a legal system that paints you as a monster.

[Samseau]

(08-17-2011 04:46 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 09:35 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's funny that you think our justice system is fair

This is my opinion. See, the difference between you and me that you seem to read the news and blindly believe in all the shit written there - and modern "journalists" are more concerned about making the flashy headlines than real reporting; most of them have never read the actual court case they report on. However I try to look up the particular court case, and read the decision. It is much less exciting than watching some stupid actor playing judge on TV, but it gives you REAL understanding how the justice system work.

And yes, there are some glitches (like SCOTUS conservative bias), but mostly the system is at large is quite fair and balanced. As I said before, a lot of people have problems with justice system or think it is unfair because they have the wrong idea about how it works, or how it should work. I've appeared at several hearings (mostly traffic and small claims), and it is amazing how unprepared the vast majority of plaintiffs/defendants come to the court room. Do it yourself, just go to the nearest court which hears small cases (not every court does, so you need to check), get in and listen for a couple of house. This may be the most eye-opening experience in your life.

Considering I went to law school and read a few hundred cases, I'd say the main difference between me and you is that I understand why it's unfair, and you blindly follow authority like a soviet sheep.


Here's the real deal:

1. All judges decisions are arbitrary.
2. Judges have enough precedents at their disposal to make whatever ruling they want.
3. Only a fool believes the reasoning of a decision matters.
4. A judge's biases are far more indicative of how they'll rule than how prior judges have ruled before them.



So I don't need to read these cases to know that the judges have zero justification for throwing a guy in jail based on allegations.

[oldnemesis]

(08-18-2011 10:28 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Considering I went to law school and read a few hundred cases, I'd say the main difference between me and you is that I understand why it's unfair, and you blindly follow authority like a soviet sheep.

We're talking about very different things here. Have you actually been to the court where the layman people try to represent themselves?

Quote:

Here's the real deal:
1. All judges decisions are arbitrary.
2. Judges have enough precedents at their disposal to make whatever ruling they want.
3. Only a fool believes the reasoning of a decision matters.
4. A judge's biases are far more indicative of how they'll rule than how prior judges have ruled before them.

I fail to see what are you trying to say here.

Quote:

So I don't need to read these cases to know that the judges have zero justification for throwing a guy in jail based on allegations.

See, you're already biased, even though you do not know the facts of the case. No wonder you accuse others of being biased as well.

[oldnemesis]

(08-18-2011 01:18 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  

Really though, if you come from an average family and are already putting yourself into huge debt going to university in the first place what can you do?

At least I'd stop by the police/DA and file a complain. Assuming the facts the way you presented them it seems to be a no-brainer, and he shouldn't have a problem to find an attorney who'd represent him on a contingency basis. If not, I'd shell the money and went for it anyway. For us Russians it is always fight to death, we do not "move on".

[Samseau]

(08-18-2011 05:10 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 10:28 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Considering I went to law school and read a few hundred cases, I'd say the main difference between me and you is that I understand why it's unfair, and you blindly follow authority like a soviet sheep.

We're talking about very different things here. Have you actually been to the court where the layman people try to represent themselves?

Quote:

Here's the real deal:
1. All judges decisions are arbitrary.
2. Judges have enough precedents at their disposal to make whatever ruling they want.
3. Only a fool believes the reasoning of a decision matters.
4. A judge's biases are far more indicative of how they'll rule than how prior judges have ruled before them.

I fail to see what are you trying to say here.

Quote:

So I don't need to read these cases to know that the judges have zero justification for throwing a guy in jail based on allegations.

See, you're already biased, even though you do not know the facts of the case. No wonder you accuse others of being biased as well.

The point is that there is no rule of law and it is naive to believe there is. The judges can do almost anything they want. There's no need to read a court decision.

[el mechanico]

(08-18-2011 05:48 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 01:18 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  

Really though, if you come from an average family and are already putting yourself into huge debt going to university in the first place what can you do?

At least I'd stop by the police/DA and file a complain. Assuming the facts the way you presented them it seems to be a no-brainer, and he shouldn't have a problem to find an attorney who'd represent him on a contingency basis. If not, I'd shell the money and went for it anyway. For us Russians it is always fight to death, we do not "move on".

oldnemesis, that is fucking awesome! Bravo Russians!

[blurb]

(08-15-2011 07:56 PM)Jason Zee Wrote:  

This story smells real fishy. There are a lot of women out there that cry rape falsely. Once a man is labeled a rapist or even accused of being one his reputation is forever tainted. I want to start seeing some of these women persecuted!!

(08-17-2011 02:54 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  

And of course, she paid zero penalty for pretty much ruining the academic careers and reputations of two men.

Bitches are crazy.

[oldnemesis]

(08-18-2011 06:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The point is that there is no rule of law and it is naive to believe there is. The judges can do almost anything they want. There's no need to read a court decision.

Rule of law means something different from what you said. Not to mention you provided absolutely no evidence for such a bold claim you made, which makes me wondering whether you really understand what you write. Did you actually graduated from a law school, or by "went to law school" you meant that you just visited the campus a few times to party?