| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 60541 | 2005-08-05 02:22:00 | Men jailed for Mt Maunganui pack rape | Scouse (83) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 378616 | 2005-08-06 12:57:00 | Just watch the media boys and all will be explained. Jeremy you must be what, 13years old. Your comment is offensive and shows your lack of comprehension of the human condition. Just listen and learn. No, I am not 13 years old. I just have ability to see some stupid weaknesses in this world. |
Jeremy (1197) | ||
| 378617 | 2005-08-06 16:06:00 | And a jury decided that 4 men who displayed "stupid weaknesses" should be sent to prison for what they did - in spite of it being 16 years ago. Instead of giving your anonymous opinions here, front up to your mother, sisters or girlfriend & ask them how they feel about gang rape. Better still, consider how you'd feel if it happened to any of them . I doubt you'd be so casual in your opinions if it was your family involved. |
Laura (43) | ||
| 378618 | 2005-08-06 22:20:00 | No, I am not 13 years old. I just have ability to see some stupid weaknesses in this world. Well, maybe 12 years old then; no more. It is only pre-adolescents that have that degree of certainty about their "talents". Personally I prefer the judgement of a jury of 12 who have heard the evidence to the prejudices of an unknown who has heard none of it, and who demonstrates he has no understanding of the reality of rape. And clearly you did not read the reports of evidence that demonstrate that the complainant was intimidated by the offenders after the rape and the extent to which she had to go to keep herself safe from them. |
John H (8) | ||
| 378619 | 2005-08-07 09:46:00 | Put yourselves in the defendants' shoes. If these men were innocent, they'd find it near impossible to prove it. It's a hell of a lot easier to cry rape than to prove consent took place 16 years ago. There are good reasons for having statutes of limitations on things, the women aren't always the victims in these cases. Although I might not agree with his phrasing, I respect Jeremy's opinion (12 years old or not). |
BigGary (8668) | ||
| 378620 | 2005-08-07 09:49:00 | The last time I saw stats on NZ rape trials, they went like this - 10% of rapes are reported to the Police, and 10% of complaints end in convictions. I should say that the odds are stacked pretty well in favour of the defendants, wouldn't you? And it is the Police who have to prove it; the defendants only have to raise a reasonable doubt. Clearly 12 lay people on a jury in this case felt that they didn't raise any doubts that met the "reasonable" test. As I said earlier, we didn't see or hear the evidence - the jury did. I prefer to rely on their opinion rather than uninformed ideas. And all of the men presumably had competent counsel to battle on their behalf. |
John H (8) | ||
| 378621 | 2005-08-07 11:29:00 | The last time I saw stats on NZ rape trials, they went like this - 10% of rapes are reported to the Police, and 10% of complaints end in convictions. I should say that the odds are stacked pretty well in favour of the defendants, wouldn't you? And it is the Police who have to prove it; the defendants only have to raise a reasonable doubt. Clearly 12 lay people on a jury in this case felt that they didn't raise any doubts that met the "reasonable" test. As I said earlier, we didn't see or hear the evidence - the jury did. I prefer to rely on their opinion rather than uninformed ideas. And all of the men presumably had competent counsel to battle on their behalf. I never said whether I thought the men were guilty of rape or not. I just believe that it was too long ago for her to suddenly complain about the rape. |
Jeremy (1197) | ||
| 378622 | 2005-08-07 13:04:00 | You people need to get lives -- not one of you attended the trial. Not one of you personally knoiws either the defendants or the complainant yet here you all are waxing on like a bunch of sanctinonious know-it-alls. People like you disgust me -- stick to PC-related issues where you may at least still retain a little credibility... |
Chemical Ali (118) | ||
| 378623 | 2006-04-05 07:50:00 | Perhaps the recent high profile case may give clues as to the identities of the name suppressed. The unnamed men were also convicted of unlawful sexual connection and one was found guilty of a second rape. Both were acquitted of sexual violation with an object, the details of which are also suppressed. Sexual violation with an object certainly sounds familier, I suggest the reason for the suppression is because it would have given the identities away. |
Hoodoofan (8669) | ||
| 378624 | 2006-04-05 08:19:00 | Rumour has it where I live, that the 2 with name suppression where involved in the Louis Nicholas trial. Trevor :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 378625 | 2006-04-05 08:24:00 | Lmao at the feeling that 12 men or women could actually be right. I believe it was a Jury of 12 who put Arthur Alan Thomas away. And a jury of 12 wrongfully sent 3 teenage girls to prison in 2000. There are other cases (possibly Peter Ellis?) .. you get the drift. Then we have the Rickards and associates case, even although they have been found not guilty, there is still a smear campaign against them. Maybe the 12 got it wrong again The 12 are human, humans are susceptible to error. AS for who these guys are, I don't know, I don't care. I might even know them (I lived in Tauranga and surrounding areas for 13 years).. none of my business. I have better things in life to think about. |
Myth (110) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||