Premier League 2023-24 (24 Viewers)

[X Æ A-12]

Bro, people have been trying for the past 48 hours.

If Mason Greenwood himself had a crisis of conscience, confessed to the whole thing and asked to be incarcerated, Badass would continue to blame the girl lol

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Hist]

You're an idiot.

Your entire post goes against the core principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

"The absence of evidence does not mean he is innocent either." - No, it doesn't. But you can't use it to infer guilt. That's just crazy.

And then you make it even worse by saying society should cast him out, even if his guilt wasn't proven.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

"one is presumed innocent until proven guilty" - yes presumed innocent by the government/state not by people who have to work or live with the alleged perpetrator who saw some really incriminating evidence. And even the state/judiciary doesnt just release people onto the street until the trial date. If they think the alleged perpetrator may pose a danger to others they often hold them until trial or bail with a guarantor. Its not as black and white as you make it seem. There is no total and absolute neutrality before proof of guilt.

""The absence of evidence does not mean he is innocent either." - No, it doesn't. But you can't use it to infer guilt." - I am not. I am inferring high probability of guilt based on the material I saw myself not by the absence of evidence. Thats a perfectly rational assessment. If you see a man beating a woman in a back alley on the streets of belgium and no one else is there, you wont calmly walk by as if nothing was happening (or at least I hope you wouldnt). You wouldnt presume innocence until he is held before a jury to really get into the weeds of their relationship and assess in depth if he passes some legal threshold of assault. You'd rationally believe your eyes and hopefully intervene.

And if that guy isnt arrested and you see him near your sister or your friend, you bet your ass you'll warn her. Presumption of innocence is for the state to apply due process before exacting punishment. Its a way to balance the powers of state institutions that operate at scale not something every individual should do in every case until a trial is concluded with guilt.

If you cant make a character judgment without a court process and judge looking into it, man you'll struggle outside of Belgium. Trust your judgment when its obvious the official process is missing something glaring... you're doing it with Calciopoli, and our points deduction. Its not a leap to trust your judgment when there is a clear recording of a woman being raped. Its a much smaller leap than ones you're taking already for something as silly as football.

 

[Nzoric]

Correct me if I'm wrong, given the recent scandals involving Juve in which these wire taps aren't deemed as evidence in a civil court but was somehow enough to incriminate us in a sporting court. If all we have and know that could suggest that Greenwood is a rapist/attempted rape then are we suggesting that Juve was 100% guilty for the charges based off those wire taps/audio and transcripts as well now?

We are definitely guilty, only idiots would disagree.

The problem is that everyone else is as guilty and they went home free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nzoric]

In most countries, but I do not know about the UK specifically, they still investigate even if the woman changes her mind. The reasoning behind this is that rape victims may have the wrong reasons for recanting their stories.

But in any case you also have United's internal investigation. And United say he is not guilty of the accusations. That's not nothing.

And how many of those lead to convictions? In Denmark its next to none, because the alleged victim recants and all the remaining evidence becomes too light to prosecute.

Imo, if she recants he shouldnt be prosecuted nor convicted. But, based on the recording, he was raping her. Those things can coexist, No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swag]

I wouldn't want a man beater either?

Unless he's beating himself, in which case, he better watch out so he doesn't go blind!

Whoah, here she comes

 

[Badass J Elkann]

If Mason Greenwood himself had a crisis of conscience, confessed to the whole thing and asked to be incarcerated, Badass would continue to blame the girl lol

if he confessed he'd be admitting guilt you dummy

 

[X Æ A-12]

if he confessed he'd be admitting guilt you dummy

 

[icemaη]

I don't want to revive this or get back into this at all, but I have to just ask for your opinion on this since I keep thinking about this comment. Why should it matter at all what United say? What qualifications do they have to investigate anything pertaining to their own staff, or assurances of impartiality at all?

We investigated ourselves and found that we did no wrong

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

We investigated ourselves and found that we did no wrong

Lets just wait for the court decisions

....wait

 

[GordoDeCentral]

We are definitely guilty, only idiots would disagree.

The problem is that everyone else is as guilty and they went home free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guilty of what? Hurting inters feelings?

 

[Lion]

And how many of those lead to convictions? In Denmark its next to none, because the alleged victim recants and all the remaining evidence becomes too light to prosecute.

Imo, if she recants he shouldnt be prosecuted nor convicted. But, based on the recording, he was raping her. Those things can coexist, No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i didn't hear the recording but couldn't it have been a rape role playing she recorded and she then decided to use in false context?

 

[.zero]

this thread

 

[Post Ironic]

If Mason Greenwood himself had a crisis of conscience, confessed to the whole thing and asked to be incarcerated, Badass would continue to blame the girl lol

She behaved like a narcissist to him. Of course it was her fault.

 

[Hist]

Can we call them greenwood throaters?

 

[Seven]

"one is presumed innocent until proven guilty" - yes presumed innocent by the government/state not by people who have to work or live with the alleged perpetrator who saw some really incriminating evidence. And even the state/judiciary doesnt just release people onto the street until the trial date. If they think the alleged perpetrator may pose a danger to others they often hold them until trial or bail with a guarantor. Its not as black and white as you make it seem. There is no total and absolute neutrality before proof of guilt.

""The absence of evidence does not mean he is innocent either." - No, it doesn't. But you can't use it to infer guilt." - I am not. I am inferring high probability of guilt based on the material I saw myself not by the absence of evidence. Thats a perfectly rational assessment. If you see a man beating a woman in a back alley on the streets of belgium and no one else is there, you wont calmly walk by as if nothing was happening (or at least I hope you wouldnt). You wouldnt presume innocence until he is held before a jury to really get into the weeds of their relationship and assess in depth if he passes some legal threshold of assault. You'd rationally believe your eyes and hopefully intervene.

And if that guy isnt arrested and you see him near your sister or your friend, you bet your ass you'll warn her. Presumption of innocence is for the state to apply due process before exacting punishment. Its a way to balance the powers of state institutions that operate at scale not something every individual should do in every case until a trial is concluded with guilt.

If you cant make a character judgment without a court process and judge looking into it, man you'll struggle outside of Belgium. Trust your judgment when its obvious the official process is missing something glaring... you're doing it with Calciopoli, and our points deduction. Its not a leap to trust your judgment when there is a clear recording of a woman being raped. Its a much smaller leap than ones you're taking already for something as silly as football.

People may be held under certain circumstances while awaiting their trial date, yes. But that is not what is happening here. The case didn't go forward, because there was no proof. You can't just say he's guilty anyway.

And as for the part in bold: that's precisely the problem here. You say it is a "clear recording of a woman being raped". Well, there was a criminal and an internal investigation. Both concluded there was no evidence of rape. They obviously looked into the recording as well. So obviously the recording is not quite the proof you want it to be. Perhaps it was tampered with. Perhaps it was taken out of context. Perhaps she was just lying on tape. We don't know. But we do know that the people who actually investigated the case believe the tape didn't really show anything.

And how many of those lead to convictions? In Denmark its next to none, because the alleged victim recants and all the remaining evidence becomes too light to prosecute.

Imo, if she recants he shouldnt be prosecuted nor convicted. But, based on the recording, he was raping her. Those things can coexist, No?

No, they cannot coexist.

Either you believe the recording demonstrates rape or you don't. If you believe it does, there is at least sufficient evidence to go to trial. Apparently the investigators had reasons to believe the recording did not demonstrate rape.

 

[swag]

i didn't hear the recording but couldn't it have been a rape role playing she recorded and she then decided to use in false context?

So the Luciano Moggi defense?

 

[Gigiventus]

People may be held under certain circumstances while awaiting their trial date, yes. But that is not what is happening here. The case didn't go forward, because there was no proof. You can't just say he's guilty anyway.

And as for the part in bold: that's precisely the problem here. You say it is a "clear recording of a woman being raped". Well, there was a criminal and an internal investigation. Both concluded there was no evidence of rape. They obviously looked into the recording as well. So obviously the recording is not quite the proof you want it to be. Perhaps it was tampered with. Perhaps it was taken out of context. Perhaps she was just lying on tape. We don't know. But we do know that the people who actually investigated the case believe the tape didn't really show anything.




No, they cannot coexist.

Either you believe the recording demonstrates rape or you don't. If you believe it does, there is at least sufficient evidence to go to trial. Apparently the investigators had reasons to believe the recording did not demonstrate rape.

Keep fighting the good fight, show those rape victims who's the boss.

 

[Seven]

Keep fighting the good fight, show those rape victims who's the boss.

Again. The entire point is that you don't know if she's a rape victim.

We do know:

- there was a criminal investigation, which did not find substantial evidence of rape;
- there was an internal investigation, which concluded Greenwood was not guilty of rape;
- the alleged victim said no actual rape took place.

These are facts.

 

[s4tch]

Keep fighting the good fight, show those rape victims who's the boss.

i get where seven is coming from. he's a lawyer, he has faith in the modern legal system, greenwood wasn't found guilty, end of discussion. that's factual, there's no point arguing. everyone is free to add their takes obviously

badass though... greenwood just gets fired from man.utd, his ethics are at least questionable, he's obviously dumb as a rock, hasn't been training for a while, even saudis don't want him. badass: sign him up

how is it even a discussion for 2 days is beyond me

 

[Badass J Elkann]

i get where seven is coming from. he's a lawyer, he has faith in the modern legal system, greenwood wasn't found guilty, end of discussion. that's factual, there's no point arguing. everyone is free to add their takes obviously

badass though... greenwood just gets fired from man.utd, his ethics are at least questionable, he's obviously dumb as a rock, hasn't been training for a while, even saudis don't want him. badass: sign him up

how is it even a discussion for 2 days is beyond me

As I keep reiterating we already have a history of signing players with a history of abuse and accused rape. Funny you weren't there to object. Fucking hypocrite