Soldato
Jack Green the sorta fella to watch "The implication" scene in Always Sunny and think it's a reasonable thing to do.
Bet no one saw this one coming (Weinstein's conviction over-turned)..
- Thread starter MadMossy
- Start date
Soldato
Oh I understand choice, just can’t wrap my head around the choice you keep making to reaffirm your barmy opinion.
Associate
We as humans make similar decisions every day.
The problem arises when we cant make the decision.for example a car accident, the choice was taken away.
Another example if I leave sweets everyday on the table and you develop diabetes am I to blamed?
Associate
Merton While we are all socialized to desire success, we do not all have the same opportunities to become suc-
cessful. Thus, Merton defined several adaptations to anomie and strain.
This is when deviant behaviour develops, from the person that wishes to become successful.
Last edited:
Soldato
Well thank you for providing clarity………………
People need to understand "coercion" and how that makes a big difference.
The idea that it can only be rape if the person is physically held down is either utterly idiotic or utterly repugnant.
Coercion or a transaction? If your doing x to get y or at the very least the promise of y is that not OK?
There's a fine line with this stuff and it's rarely as clear cut as is often portrayed.
There's a fine line with this stuff and it's rarely as clear cut as is often portrayed.
Last edited:
Commissario
Weinstien was basically ambushing women and making it very clear that either they slept with him, or they would get a reputation as being hard to work with and would definitely never get a job on any film his company had anything to do with.
That's not really a fine line, that's basically "you either sleep with me now, or I ruin your career and make it so you never get a job in the business again", and that was the "nicest" way he did it (the women he targeted were very deliberately put in a position where they were surprised and given no time to get over the shock).
Last edited:
That's clearly coercion.
The legal definition of rape (both in US and UK law) make absolutely no mention of holding someone against their will or use of force. It's entirely about consent, and it's worrying you don't know that.
Troll or not, you seem like an awful person.
Associate
If you look his conviction it was labelled as 3rd degree and this was pushed by public opinion.
Look at guys that sleep with women, the next day the women regret it and makes a claim of rape, sometimes due their friends says negative things about the person.
None of them refused in this case, ie refused consent.
I read some off them even entered the bed.
There was a point were he was playing with himself and a women walked in.
'Beckinsale added that she believes rejecting Weinstein harmed her career." She was I think 17at time, her career took off her 20s.She walked away. This was mirrored by the reports.
Beckinsale likes younger guys. The younger guys could turn round and say I was intimidated into going out with her. Would this count as rape?
It was a transaction that they regretted later or not fulfilled.
It is more like sexual harassment than rape, and at a push at times.
Last edited:
You are incorrect on this count, the US law does mention the use of force. A lack of consent appears to be classed as Sexual assault.
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally
Edit: Legal terms often mean very specific things when compared to day to day use.
Last edited:
Soldato
He won't be out anytime soon
Thanks, that wasn't on the page I looked at.You are incorrect on this count, the US law does mention the use of force. A lack of consent appears to be classed as Sexual assault.
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally
www.law.cornell.edu
Edit: Legal terms often mean very specific things when compared to day to day use.
Edit: After a second look, the above legislation (Title 10) appears to relate specifically to rape within the US military, the broader definition and that used by the FBI focuses on consent.
Last edited:
Well that explains the court martial bit.
I wonder why they have different definitions.
Which page were you looking at?
FFS diddums, just spat my tea all over my desk!
I don't think it is the right thing to do in a case like that - it's quite common that even prior convictions aren't brought up in a trial (or say the fact that a defendant is already serving a prison sentence for another violent crime etc..) let alone a bunch of allegations that seemingly didn't even warrant pressing charges over.
He should be tried on the merits of the relevant charges and unrelated claims that only service to try and sway the jury by attacking his character are clearly dubious. It's a bit iffy that the Californian conviction also used the fact he'd been convicted in NYC - now the NYC conviction has been overturned is that leaving an opening to appeal the California case too?
I don't doubt that he's a wrong un, I think he's an incredibly sleazy individual - they're just not helping themselves by going OTT with the prosecution, it will be farcical if the California one gets overturned too and needs a new trial. The more general issue, if they screw up like this in other cases, the victims (or alleged victims) then need to go through the trial process all over again because the prosecution overplayed their hand a bit, in some cases they might not be willing to do so.
Soldato
He could implicate too many people I reckon, it seems a big merry go round of awful actors and awful films and TV who know too much so keep getting roles.
some people are too scared to move or try and stop it.
the offender will obviously see the distress in the other persons face or the totally blank look
Last edited: