News that makes you say WTF! (43 Viewers)

[ZoSo]

Why do you laugh?

You've never in your life read nobel price winning litterature (heck have you ever read a book beyond Harry Potter/Stephen King?), so how come you've all of a sudden can judge whether or not the nobel price to Dylan can be justified?

You really are on a mission to state your lack of bildung, muppet

Another Saddy post that essentially translates to "im smarter than u r" instead either of the other ones "guys i get so much pussy i swear" or "my deck is bigger than urs". You need some new material

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ALC]

Why?

It's the rape charge that has to re-trial due to lack of evidence and the defendant will stay behind bars.

Isn't this what we in a civilised world call criminal justice?

I bet @Seven can give you a more formal explanation.

The law there might b different or something. Why does it matter if the 10 year old said no? It's still statutory rape.

 

[Ocelot]

Why?

It's the rape charge that has to re-trial due to lack of evidence and the defendant will stay behind bars.

Isn't this what we in a civilised world call criminal justice?

I bet @Seven can give you a more formal explanation.

Yeah it seems to mostly be about formal technicalities, it would be outrageous if the guy was for any reason let go, but that's not what's happening here.

- - - Updated - - -

The law there might b different or something. Why does it matter if the 10 year old said no? It's still statutory rape.

It is, but in this case it's obviously much much worse than "just" statutory rape, and as such he's being tried for rape of a minor, which of course warrants a much higher sentence than statutory.

 

[Maddy]

The law there might b different or something. Why does it matter if the 10 year old said no? It's still statutory rape.

You said yourself. "the law". It's all about the law. Supreme court is there to interpret it, nothing else. What a layman thinks about it is irrelevant until it's tiem to vote for the lawmakers.

In this case there's no room for the feeling of justice or fairness. Despite the daily shitters intend to create narrative about that. oh.. and disgusting refugees

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah it seems to mostly be about formal technicalities, it would be outrageous if the guy was for any reason let go, but that's not what's happening here.

Rape is one of the hardest thing to prove in a court. But I'm confident he'll get convicted for rape when the trial goes to court again in '17.

 

[X Æ A-12]

Why?

It's the rape charge that has to re-trial due to lack of evidence and the defendant will stay behind bars.

Isn't this what we in a civilised world call criminal justice?

Because the "lack of evidence" is that they can't prove the ten year old was saying no while getting raped? In the civilized world having sex with a ten year old is illegal regardless of whether you can prove that person clearly said no during

 

[Enron]

Because the "lack of evidence" is that they can't prove the ten year old was saying no while getting raped? In the civilized world having sex with a ten year old is illegal regardless of whether you can prove that person clearly said no during

It's 40 years and a mule in your butt here in the good old us of a.

 

[Maddy]

Because the "lack of evidence" is that they can't prove the ten year old was saying no while getting raped? In the civilized world having sex with a ten year old is illegal regardless of whether you can prove that person clearly said no during

something tells me you haven't read the entire article?

perhaps that's a good place to start. at least for a civilized person

 

[Seven]

That has to be satire right?

Why?

It's the rape charge that has to re-trial due to lack of evidence and the defendant will stay behind bars.

Isn't this what we in a civilised world call criminal justice?

I bet @Seven can give you a more formal explanation.
- - - Updated - - -

I have no knowledge about the particulars of the case, but if I read the article no one is disputing that a crime was committed. The question is whether or not it will constitute rape.

But the Supreme Court rescinded the sentence and ordered a re-trial with the court's president Thomas Philipp calling the verdict 'watertight' when it came to the sexual assault of a child, but that rape could not be sufficiently proved, says The Local.

The higher court said it should have been ascertained whether or not the victim agreed to the sexual act or whether Amir A had acted against the will of the boy.

Also, from what I've read they will still get a chance to prove the rape claim again.

- - - Updated - - -

something tells me you haven't read the entire article?

perhaps that's a good place to start. at least for a civilized person

While the article isn't necessarily wrong, the journalist is making some grave errors here. The title, the style it's written in... They all seem to indicate that the dude will walk, when it's clear he won't.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

[Bjerknes]

Please change that to Obama-led. He sure as hell isn't our President.

 

[Ocelot]

He kinda is though

Has been for quite some time too

 

[icemaη]

He kinda is though

Has been for quite some time too

Guess who voted for him the first time around?

 

[Tak!]

Guess who voted for him the first time around?

Trump?

 

[Enron]

He kinda is though

Has been for quite some time too

Just about 8 years to tell the truth.

 

[lgorTudor]

This is just the beginning. Thank you for signing CETA
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...m-from-florence-over-piazza-restaurant-rebuff

 

[swag]

This is just the beginning. Thank you for signing CETA
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...m-from-florence-over-piazza-restaurant-rebuff

Sorry, man. The clown's American... not a Beaver-head.

 

[lgorTudor]

Sorry, man. The clown's American... not a Beaver-head.

I'm aware. This is however the direction in which the EU commission nazis push the continent

a little outlook (NAFTA):
http://www.international.gc.ca/trad...x/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng

Eli Lilly and Company Inc. (“Eli Lilly”), a U.S. corporation incorporated in Indiana, is a global pharmaceutical company. Eli Lilly wholly owns and controls Eli Lilly Canada, Inc.

Eli Lilly alleges that it held, directly and indirectly, Canadian patents with respect to several pharmaceutical compounds. It further alleges that the interpretation of the term “useful” in Canada’s Patent Act by the Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, between 2002 and 2008, violates Canada’s obligations under NAFTA. In particular, Eli Lilly alleges that the interpretation given to this term by the Canadian courts violates Canada’s obligations under NAFTA Article 1105 (Minimum Standard of Treatment) on the basis that it is arbitrary and discriminatory

 

[Ocelot]

This is just the beginning. Thank you for signing CETA
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...m-from-florence-over-piazza-restaurant-rebuff

That's got very little to do with CETA, shit been there for years - plus if I'm not wrong McDonalds uses a European subsidary for this kinda stuff, so it wouldn't even be part of TTIP (which thankfully has now a very little chance to actually pass).

 

[lgorTudor]

That's got very little to do with CETA, shit been there for years - plus if I'm not wrong McDonalds uses a European subsidary for this kinda stuff, so it wouldn't even be part of TTIP (which thankfully has now a very little chance to actually pass).

Looks like I was lazy at getting my point across. Obviously, this particular case doesn't fall under ceta. I'm pointing at an incoming increase of lawsuits of same or similar substance as ceta gets rolling. Every pseudo-democractic agreement that is being passed in Brussels backrooms is accompanied by a shocking incision into public life, to which cases like this in my opinion belong.

 

[Ocelot]

Looks like I was lazy at getting my point across. Obviously, this particular case doesn't fall under ceta. I'm pointing at an incoming increase of lawsuits of same or similar substance as ceta gets rolling. Every pseudo-democractic agreement that is being passed in Brussels backrooms is accompanied by a shocking incision into public life, to which cases like this in my opinion belong.

Yeah it's a disgrace really, and what bothers me most is that these kind of deals are exactly what is indirectly ruining the European Union for everyone, by empowering the right wing nationalists.

It makes it so difficult to defend the EU as a concept and even advocate for it getting more legislative power when you've got stuff like this being pushed by the conservatives & liberals (not US definition of liberals of course).