Discussion in 'Current Events' started by stevethrower, Jul 6, 2012.
Wouldn't it have been attempted ****?
Or just assault.
It "Enticed" him!
They're so enlightened over there.
I guess the judge has never heard of entering through the back door. What a stupid ruling.
it's not **** if she has a cock
Yeah, men can still **** other men. I kinda get the logic otherwise... if you torch your ex-wife's home late at night not knowing she choked to death an hour earlier, you never had the ability to murder her, so attempted murder would be tough to prove. I guess that's the point the judge was making... this man's goal was to **** a woman, which was impossible to do in this situation.
You can stop right there because that's all the law should be concerned with.
It was just horse play!
Yeah I get what you're saying, but I think there has to be an ability to break the law you're being charged with. I'm not saying this fucker shouldn't go to jail for assault, but from a legal standpoint there probably is an argument to be made here.
1) He can still :rap: dude's mouth and ass so he does, in fact, have the "ability to break the law" in this case.
2) He should be charged with attempted :rap:. Even if he couldn't :rap: dude, he still attempted to.
3) He didn't know that he "couldn't" :rap: dude.
They'd have to provide he intended to **** the guys mouth/ass though. I'm not positive on this issue, but from my criminal justice classes 8 years ago I seem to remember that there must be an ability to carry out the crime. Going back to the murder example I gave, if the victim is already dead, there's no possible way to commit the crime of murder, so thus attempted murder is off the table also. This story is a little more up to interpretation than that, but I think that's the logic they used.
The intent to :rap: was clear regardless of the specifics. That's irrelevant, though, because he didn't know it was a guy. As far as he knew, he had the ability so whether or not he actually did has no bearing on this case.
Keep in mind that this is a Swedish criminal case, not an American one. The laws are different there.
It doesn't matter what orifice he planned to violate. Any instance of non-consensual sexual intercourse is rape. If the victim had been held down and blown against his will, that would still be a rape.
If the girl was actually a girl, she would have been *****.
Dude's a scumbag. And so are the people that let him walk.
Yes that is how they reasoned. It is going to be repealed. But I do think there still is a possibility for ****. There have of course been manrape before. As a matter of fact there was one recently. I don't think this man would be picky either. He is originaly from Eritrea and people from non-western countries often believe that it is only a homosexual if you are at the receiving end. To penetrate is seen as a male act, and so cannot be homosexual.
Where are you originally from? English obviously isn't your primary language.
I am used to be able to edit posts so I can correct misstakes in grammar and wording. Can't do that yet on Wackbag.
Were you the victim of a recent :rap: attempt?
Not for nothing but whether it's a cunt or some dude's bung hole,
if they're saying no while you're shoving it in, it's still :rap:.
he was just fishing the candy our of her hiney
I guess it kinda makes sense if the guy tore off his/her pants, saw a cock, and gave up. If his initial intent was to r8pe, and then he changed his mind once he saw what he was getting into and just decided to beat the shit out of him/her, does it still count as attempted r8pe?
Legally? I have no idea. Lawyers live in their own little worlds. But in my mind? Yes, without question.
I bet the discovery of the twig n berries was quite the show stopper.