USC Student Says She Was ? , The Nightclub Video Determined That Was A Lie
Options
Comments
-
I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion. -
? gotta start ? with go pros on just to prove they didn't ? a ? .
@jono. It's silly as hell to demand someone prove a negative. She has to prove he ? . He doesn't have to prove he didn't. Based on the video evidence it was going to be nigh impossible and a waste of money to try to concoct a narrative where the girl dragging the guy and making ? gestures to a friend was ? by same said guy. -
I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
C'mon bruh...........that's a stretch.
I mean, it's possible...........but not likely.
What it does do, is call her credibility into question.
It really all comes down to accountability.
Women need to stop using alcohol as an excuse for bad judgment.........and the legislature and/or courts needs to stop enacting/enforcing laws that help enable this foolishness.
What's ironic is the fact that..........if she got behind the wheel of a car immediately after her "? " and ended up killing someone.........she'd be charged with ? driving and vehicular homicide.
All that.................."I was too ? to realize what I was doing"................? wouldn't fly in that situtation........so it shouldn't be taken seriously in this situation either. -
That gesture behind his back saved him from the fuckery....
-
LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY wrote: »Outside of swinger clubs I BOYCOTT THESE WOMEN.
I dont engage talkings
I dont pay drink
I barely stare at them.
Less money spent
Less stress
If she approaches i tell her that im chillin, i dont want to talk... UNLESS YOU BUY ME A DRINK.
If she shows sexual interest, i give her the adress of the sauna or i tell her to order a hotel room so she couldnt charge me for ? easliy.
Yea its ? up brothers and sisters, but one have to adapt to his society.
The pressure and legal risks are too high. Rather play safe.
U hard in the yard -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.
Think about it like this, either she said he ? her or the prosecution says he ? her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with ? . The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you ? and ? you.
Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's ? , leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and ? her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? ? , at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't ? .
Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.
The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.
So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?
It doesn't.
the video doesnt shot she didnt give consent either..
so we got her story..
his story..
and the ? video..
the ? lost..
if this ? dont remember ? aint nothin for her to have to get over then..
lets move along.
This is why we have trials. Not people throwing out cases because of videos that...again...doesn't contradict the argument.
It contradicts the charges they brought against him as well as perhaps her being too ? to remember.
It contradicts the story they were trying to paint.
It probably also shows the truth - which is that she ? because she wanted to ? and is lying about being ? .
No it doesn't. There's no sex at all in the video. You can't make a determination of whether sex even happened from that video
"Based on the evidence....." which supports the guys version more than hers. Its actually hilarious how well the footage worked against her and how nonchalant he was to her 'aggressive' advances.
Oh and u actin like thats your girl in the footage -
konceptjones wrote: »and somehow we still don't know "her" name.There should be legal consequences for her.
Some white girl just got charged with lying about being ? and kidnapped by 3 black dudes last week. As said before it all depends on what that department and that DA wants to pursue. It's not hard to find stories of women being charged for filing false ? claims.
That's part of the problem.
It shouldn't have to "depend" on anything.
If a woman is proven to have intentionally lied about being ? /sexually assaulted...........she needs to be prosecuted for it.
And her name and identity should be made public.
I agree, but unfortunately that's not how that works in all cases but there are instances where women do get charged and jail time for lying about ? . It's not that it doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen alot which is why it isn't emphasized as much...which ironically is along the same line of logic of the previous debate before about trying to emphasize the admittedly lower instances of false ? claims on the same level as the number of legit ? claims. -
@jono is correct tho
the footage just undermines shorty's credibility.........it doesn't truly disprove whether or not she was ?
if there are laws where if a woman can say stop in the middle of intercourse, and the man can be charged for ? if he continues
then it's possible that she still could've been ? .......I think that's the point that @jono has raised
bottom line is ol boy is lucky as ? that some DA/judge wasn't pressed to try to prove a point
dudes gotta be smarter about ? with ? chicks........I learned that ? personally in the Army, seen it go bad way too many times in the barracks
-
I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
C'mon bruh...........that's a stretch.
I mean, it's possible...........but not likely.
What it does do, is call her credibility into question.
It really all comes down to accountability.
Women need to stop using alcohol as an excuse for bad judgment.........and the legislature and/or courts needs to stop enacting/enforcing laws that help enable this foolishness.
What's ironic is the fact that..........if she got behind the wheel of a car immediately after her "? " and ended up killing someone.........she'd be charged with ? driving and vehicular homicide.
All that.................."I was too ? to realize what I was doing"................? wouldn't fly in that situtation........so it shouldn't be taken seriously in this situation either.
I wouldn't say it shouldn't be taken serious because being ? doesn't negate the fact that the possibility, though in this instance seemingly very slight, that she was ? but it should be taken into account when trying to immediately recall the details especially since its known that ? in itself is traumatic enough that some victims process the trauma by blocking out certain details or only being able to recall them later when they're memory is triggered by something -
Young_Chitlin wrote: »
workin on it... -
blakfyahking wrote: »@jono is correct tho
the footage just undermines shorty's credibility.........it doesn't truly disprove whether or not she was ?
if there are laws where if a woman can say stop in the middle of intercourse, and the man can be charged for ? if he continues
then it's possible that she still could've been ? .......I think that's the point that @jono has raised
bottom line is ol boy is lucky as ? that some DA/judge wasn't pressed to try to prove a point
dudes gotta be smarter about ? with ? chicks........I learned that ? personally in the Army, seen it go bad way too many times in the barracks
? is a he said she said issue. The evidence for consensual sex is also evidence of ? , so that means it all comes down to credibility.
Her lack of credibility and the physical evidence refuting her version of events made her claim improbable to prove.
If he weren't on video he'd be a ? simply because she voluntarily drank too much to remember dragging a guy back to ? him. That's the ? up part. Had it not been for the video he wouldn't have been able to prove a negative. He'd be a ? because she was irresponsible not because he forced her into a nonconsensual situation. -
? gotta start ? with go pros on just to prove they didn't ? a ? .
@jono. It's silly as hell to demand someone prove a negative. She has to prove he ? . He doesn't have to prove he didn't. Based on the video evidence it was going to be nigh impossible and a waste of money to try to concoct a narrative where the girl dragging the guy and making ? gestures to a friend was ? by same said guy.
That's not my argument. My argument is that the video doesn't contradict what she's saying. If she said she didn't consent there's no point in the video where she actually does.
The rest of this ? is irrelevant to my point. -
-
? gotta start ? with go pros on just to prove they didn't ? a ? .
@jono. It's silly as hell to demand someone prove a negative. She has to prove he ? . He doesn't have to prove he didn't. Based on the video evidence it was going to be nigh impossible and a waste of money to try to concoct a narrative where the girl dragging the guy and making ? gestures to a friend was ? by same said guy.
That's not my argument. My argument is that the video doesn't contradict what she's saying. If she said she didn't consent there's no point in the video where she actually does.
The rest of this ? is irrelevant to my point.
The video does contradict her testimony. In the video she is behaving coherently not at all like a person on the verge of blacking out and unable to give consent. Thereby it's also reasonable to assert that the man would have no viable way to ascertain her level of intoxication to even determine that the female is of such a state to not give consent.
Without the video he'd have to prove he didn't drag some incoherent semilucid ? ? off to her room for dead fish sex.
Your point is all about proving a negative which legally in this situation is unlikely. You're asking unprovable subjective questions that a defendant nor the accuser even know.
I added all that "irrelevant ? " to show where your logic falls short -
blakfyahking wrote: »@jono is correct tho
the footage just undermines shorty's credibility.........it doesn't truly disprove whether or not she was ?
if there are laws where if a woman can say stop in the middle of intercourse, and the man can be charged for ? if he continues
then it's possible that she still could've been ? .......I think that's the point that @jono has raised
bottom line is ol boy is lucky as ? that some DA/judge wasn't pressed to try to prove a point
dudes gotta be smarter about ? with ? chicks........I learned that ? personally in the Army, seen it go bad way too many times in the barracks
Please tell a story of how it went bad -
@obnoxiouslyfresh this story reminded me of The Night of on hbo
-
I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
C'mon bruh...........that's a stretch.
I mean, it's possible...........but not likely.
What it does do, is call her credibility into question.
It really all comes down to accountability.
Women need to stop using alcohol as an excuse for bad judgment.........and the legislature and/or courts needs to stop enacting/enforcing laws that help enable this foolishness.
What's ironic is the fact that..........if she got behind the wheel of a car immediately after her "? " and ended up killing someone.........she'd be charged with ? driving and vehicular homicide.
All that.................."I was too ? to realize what I was doing"................? wouldn't fly in that situtation........so it shouldn't be taken seriously in this situation either.
Hol up
Establishments that serve alcohol can be held in part responsible for the damaged caused by a ? driver that became ? on their premises
And in most places intoxicated individuals are capable of giving consent when they are the ones who decided to consume alcohol or drugs, but not if they were tricked into consuming them. Obviously if they pass out or were passed out prior or during the sex that's ?
That said, you dont have to consent to be held liable for a criminal activity. When you drive while inebriated you and you alone are breaking the law
Intent, however, is not present when you are a victim of sexual assault while intoxicated. It is not a conscious decision, regardless of degree of intoxication, to be sexually assaulted. It is something that happens to you by another individual. Right away, the situation is muddied, because it's not clear if the ? person fully understood that they were being propositioned, whether they were fully conscious or whether they revoked consent at some point
Another part of the reason why blame is placed in a less nuanced fashion is for deterence. It doesn't matter you were so ? up you don't even remember getting in the car. Instead of arranging a ride home from a sober person you chose to risk killing or seriously injuring multiple ppl. The state feels it has an interest in deterring that behavior with heavy punishments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
? claims can almost never be proven right or wrong, that's why this is such a highly contested issue. The best anyone can do is discredit the claim or the defense. -
GPSA: Don't EVER ? @Madame_CJSkywalker!!!! I swear this ? 'll get a ? hemmed up with all the excuses she be concocting on here. >_>
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
C'mon bruh...........that's a stretch.
I mean, it's possible...........but not likely.
What it does do, is call her credibility into question.
It really all comes down to accountability.
Women need to stop using alcohol as an excuse for bad judgment.........and the legislature and/or courts needs to stop enacting/enforcing laws that help enable this foolishness.
What's ironic is the fact that..........if she got behind the wheel of a car immediately after her "? " and ended up killing someone.........she'd be charged with ? driving and vehicular homicide.
All that.................."I was too ? to realize what I was doing"................? wouldn't fly in that situtation........so it shouldn't be taken seriously in this situation either.
Hol up
Establishments that serve alcohol can be held in part responsible for the damaged caused by a ? driver that became ? on their premises
And in most places intoxicated individuals are capable of giving consent when they are the ones who decided to consume alcohol or drugs, but not if they were tricked into consuming them. Obviously if they pass out or were passed out prior or during the sex that's ?
That said, you dont have to consent to be held liable for a criminal activity. When you drive while inebriated you and you alone are breaking the law
Intent, however, is not present when you are a victim of sexual assault while intoxicated. It is not a conscious decision, regardless of degree of intoxication, to be sexually assaulted. It is something that happens to you by another individual. Right away, the situation is muddied, because it's not clear if the ? person fully understood that they were being propositioned, whether they were fully conscious or whether they revoked consent at some point
Another part of the reason why blame is placed in a less nuanced fashion is for deterence. It doesn't matter you were so ? up you don't even remember getting in the car. Instead of arranging a ride home from a sober person you chose to risk killing or seriously injuring multiple ppl. The state feels it has an interest in deterring that behavior with heavy punishments
You know damn well that's not what I was referring to.
Not gonna waste time going back and forth with you though...........because I'm assuming you're trolling.
You're full of ? , but you're intelligent enough to know the context of what I was saying. -
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
Lying about ? hardly is punishable and when a lying ? is charged it's for wasting police resources or obstruction or some other misdemeanor offense.
It's obvious that females want to be treated like women and girls at the same time.
When they are getting validated and praised for even the most minute accomplishment it's "yayyy we're independent women, we're strong can do anything" but when it comes to taking accountability and responsibility they magically revert back to little girls that need protection.
There have been cases when both the man and the woman were intoxicated but the man was still charged with sexual assault while she wasn't. Unless a man is required by law to give a field sobriety test to every ? before they go home from a social gathering, there's no way a law can reasonably expect a man to know when a woman is past the point of consent outside of falling down ? or blacked out.
? have made all types of regrettable ? of sexual choices while ? . A lot of ? wouldn't be born if not for a ? ? . But that man couldn't get sober and throw a ? charge on a ? or get hit with some consequences and then start talking about consequences and doubt. Society doesnt accept that from men. Society expects men to be responsible in all circumstances.
Given that, despite what you or any other female on this forum will say, females are not equal to men. Y'all duck and dodge the outcome of your actions and if possible will make the nearest ? responsible for your decisions. -
Females should be charged when they are found to have lied about ? . The problem is, the only time that ever happens is when the females come clean. They won't do that if they think they would go to jail. Making sure innocent dudes get out of jail is more important than putting lying hoes in jail.
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
Lying about ? hardly is punishable and when a lying ? is charged it's for wasting police resources or obstruction or some other misdemeanor offense.
It's obvious that females want to be treated like women and girls at the same time.
When they are getting validated and praised for even the most minute accomplishment it's "yayyy we're independent women, we're strong can do anything" but when it comes to taking accountability and responsibility they magically revert back to little girls that need protection.
There have been cases when both the man and the woman were intoxicated but the man was still charged with sexual assault while she wasn't. Unless a man is required by law to give a field sobriety test to every ? before they go home from a social gathering, there's no way a law can reasonably expect a man to know when a woman is past the point of consent outside of falling down ? or blacked out.
? have made all types of regrettable ? of sexual choices while ? . A lot of ? wouldn't be born if not for a ? ? . But that man couldn't get sober and throw a ? charge on a ? or get hit with some consequences and then start talking about consequences and doubt. Society doesnt accept that from men. Society expects men to be responsible in all circumstances.
Given that, despite what you or any other female on this forum will say, females are not equal to men. Y'all duck and dodge the outcome of your actions and if possible will make the nearest ? responsible for your decisions.
We have to stop being HYPOCRITES. Most women get in these clubs for one night stands. Its just that they feel that our porn society will throw stones at them.
Most of them are HIDING BEHIND ALCOHOL AND DRUGGS to ? . How can you notice : just try to take their ? . They will suddenly stop acting dizzy lol.
But now ? get worse. Some are using the ? accusation as if it will give them back their virginity. And thats how you get these false accusations.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't see how this proves she lied about ? . This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.
I'm assuming she accused him of ? , said she was too ? to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too ? (signing him into the building), etc...
She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.
The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.
Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.
Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.
This hurts her claim
The video isnt then enough to conclude she is lying without a doubt though
Otherwise lying about ? is and should be a punishable crime that could warrant jail/prison time
? claims can almost never be proven right or wrong, that's why this is such a highly contested issue. The best anyone can do is discredit the claim or the defense.
Right
The same can be said for false ? claims
Not all reports classified as unfounded are necessarily false. In some cases, women who were victims of ? were disbelieved, pressured into recanting, and charged with false reporting only to be vindicated later on
There are some women who exploit the law for their own gain. Same as we have ppl who make false police reports about a whole bunch of other ? . I could let u burrow my car and then report u stole my keys. But we have laws in place to address these cases
Otherwise besides enforcing the laws we do have on the books what can be done
Does not every police report/report of a crime deserve to be thoroughly investigated
