SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Look up Jussie Smullet.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Guilty of Sexual Abuse.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Whilst I would agree. You still haven’t given me compelling evidence that this is a widespread issue in the US court systems.
Rather ironically all you’ve done is present a claim and just simply expect me to take your word for it. Hmm
Are you telling the truth?
There was a case of college students falsely accused of rape.
And the university had to compensate them for the hedonic damage suffered because of the accusations,
but nothing was done to the female accuser. Judicially.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, that was the case. And it if was not a high profile case the conviction would have likely held.
But once again, this was not a criminal case. It was a civil one with a lower burden of proof than in a criminal case. What happens in Italy if the wrong is a purely monetary one between two parties?
Care to give me a link, if you please?
Or am I just to take you at your word?
What happens?
If a person falsely accuses someone of rape, they are jailed and sentenced to compensate the defendant.
If a person asks for justice after 23 years, the procurator tells them: shall I believe you on trust?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, and that is an example of a flaw in our legal system. The prosecutor was disbarred for his actions. He spent a short time in jail, and of course he resigned in disgrace. The woman that made the false charges was never charged herself, though she is in prison right now for second degree murder:
Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia
She should have been charged as well, though it was largely and probably properly blamed mostly one the DA who was punished for his part. He had not excuse.
So these things happen.Yes, and that is an example of a flaw in our legal system. The prosecutor was disbarred for his actions. He spent a short time in jail, and of course he resigned in disgrace. The woman that made the false charges was never charged herself, though she is in prison right now for second degree murder:
Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
She should have been charged as well, though it was largely and probably properly blamed mostly one the DA who was punished for his part. He had not excuse.
That's why I need much more evidence than the best friends' accounts.
They are insufficient evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are not paying attention or purposefully ignoring what this case was about. When Trump reran for President she felt that she had to come out with her story. Trump reacted to it by defaming her. That is a civil tort. She was not trying to get him jailed. What happens in Italy if one person lies about another and defames them publicly? Is there any recourse for the victim? Here one can get sued and have to pay that person a monetary fine. That is what happened in this case.
How did he defame her?
What did he say?
So no?
Just take you at your word?
How do I know you’re telling the truth now?
I can agree that testimony is not strong enough evidence by itself. Which is why rape trials should present corroborating evidence as well. Physical evidence or perhaps corroborating testimony. Lack of alibis. You know? Beyond reasonable doubt.
But as others in this thread have already pointed out (and I’ll admit to not being fully aware of the nuances in US legal trials myself) this case involving Trump was a civil one. So the threshold was apparently a bit lower than a criminal trial. And as far as I can tell according to various international news sources, there was enough evidence presented that a guilty verdict is one that is good enough for the US legal system. So
l
Perhaps, you know, I might never have spoken to Poilievre -- nor listened to him much at all.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And they had more than that. They had the testimony of other women that spoke of similar attacks. They had tRump shooting himself in the foot by conflating a woman that he called "too ugly to rape" with his ex-wife Marla Maples. Didn't they teach you that you have to deal with all of the evidence in a court case, not just some of it?
@Subduction Zone kindly provided with the link,So no?
Just take you at your word?
How do I know you’re telling the truth now?
I can agree that testimony is not strong enough evidence by itself. Which is why rape trials should present corroborating evidence as well. Physical evidence or perhaps corroborating testimony. Lack of alibis. You know? Beyond reasonable doubt.
But as others in this thread have already pointed out (and I’ll admit to not being fully aware of the nuances in US legal trials myself) this case involving Trump was a civil one. So the threshold was apparently a bit lower than a criminal trial. And as far as I can tell according to various international news sources, there was enough evidence presented that a guilty verdict is one that is good enough for the US legal system. So
Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia
He called her allegations "a hoax" and "a con job." To imply that someone is merely pulling a con in order to extort money is quite an effective defamation.
That's why bringing up unrelated issues,
ie, to deflect from Trump's loss in court.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In a civil case the standards are lower and they have been posted here before so I will not both to look the up again. There are two factors. One is that one only needs a "preponderance of evidence". In other words one side needs significantly more evidence than the other side, just how much is not well defined. Second unlike a criminal trial that requires a unanimous verdict in New York state at least only a 5/6 majority is required. And that figure is used because though criminal trials are almost always a jury of twelve, in New York state they can vary from six to twelve. In this case there were nine. So at least eight out of nine had to vote against Trump. If one has the full twelve only ten out of twelve need to vote against the defendant.So no?
Just take you at your word?
How do I know you’re telling the truth now?
I can agree that testimony is not strong enough evidence by itself. Which is why rape trials should present corroborating evidence as well. Physical evidence or perhaps corroborating testimony. Lack of alibis. You know? Beyond reasonable doubt.
But as others in this thread have already pointed out (and I’ll admit to not being fully aware of the nuances in US legal trials myself) this case involving Trump was a civil one. So the threshold was apparently a bit lower than a criminal trial. And as far as I can tell according to various international news sources, there was enough evidence presented that a guilty verdict is one that is good enough for the US legal system. So
Sub also pointed out that there were legal consequences for the false allegation. Admittedly mostly for the DA but as pointed out, they should have known better.
Is this a flaw in their system? Sure. All countries have flaws in their legal systems. That’s why they’re a working progress (ideally.)
They’re human constructs, after all.
Not exactly compelling evidence that it’s a widespread issue in the US legal system though.
Just that there are gaps to be addressed.
Like every country
Ahh I see
Informative frubal
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
