Reply With Quote
Poor Voice of Europe.
Islamized and unislamizable
Poor Voice of Europe.
Islamized and unislamizable
Lol Chris getting backb to work on the twitter/meme horse
that's a pretty ridiculous decision, wonder why it wasn't a jury trial...
i mean, even if he didn't know it was a crime, the mens rea is still there. he still had the intent to have sex with her despite her lack of consent. that ruling wouldn't happen in the US... as ignorance of the law can only really be a factor in a "specific intent" crime, and basically everywhere in the US, sexual battery is general intent, meaning you only need to show the intent to commit the act. guess canada has sexual battery as a specific intent crime? odd.
The judge found the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man had criminal intent, known as "mens rea" in the law. Both the man and the wife testified that they thought a husband was legally en led to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted.
The wife said she had sex many times with her husband when she did not explicitly give her consent.
But when they separated in January 2013, the woman learned that she she had the right to refuse sex with her husband. She told police about an alleged 2002 incident, which eventually led to charges.
She alleged that he had pulled her onto the couch, pulled down her pants and had sex with her despite pleading with him to stop at least three times.
Her husband told the court he could not have had sex with her at the time because he had just received a hair transplant and he was following his doctor's orders to avoid intercourse.
The judge said he found her to be a credible witness and rejected her husband's account, but said he could not find the man guilty of a crime.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41699245
Youre asking Chris about mens rea lol
good point
vy65?
What's even more ridiculous, is that there is literally no prosecution for the majority of these kinds of crimes in a lot of countries. A slap on the wrist and back on the streets!
What does this have to do with Islam, Chris?
i mean i dont think canada is one of them. its kinda startling that even the wife spent most of her time believing that he didn't need consent to have sex with her, only realizing it 11 years after she was raped
What's strange about the ruling is that the judge could have dropped it for any number of valid reasons other than the one he dropped it for.
Marital rape wasn't illegal in all 50 states until 1993.
thats because we had sharia until 1993
"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does." - The Apostle Paul, probably somewhere in the Koran
.
More like memes rea ... amirite guys?
I do civil, not criminal, trial work. So I'm a fish out of water here, but it sounds like the issue came down to consent. Wife thought she had no choice but to consent because it's her husband and husband thought consent was a non-issue because it's his wife. The bit about "legal en lement" sounds like a type of waiver/consent defense.
its pretty clear the wife didn't consent... she just didnt think consent was required at the time. judge outright said its because he lacked criminal intent
I don't know, did she not? Article says that she thought the husband was legally en led to bang her, so I wonder how that influences the consent issue.
Doesn't sound like an opinion was issued?
The guy said they didn't even have sex during that time frame.
It was he said/she said on an rape that allegedly happened 11 years prior to their breakup.
Just a weird ruling
yep. because islam tho
at least chris believes sexual assault allegations when the alleged perp is a muzzy. it's a start
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
