But the horror is you.
Turning Network (mania from which I am slowly freeing) I found a feminist bitch who, posting a video, shows how national shame and denial of the subjectivity of the woman the simple fact that not all inhabitants of a village where an alleged rape case would be de facto in favor of abolishing the presumption of innocence in cases of "gang rape".
Cara bitch, the horror you speak of rape (and then the A RAPIST OF YOUNG without giving them the possibility 'of defense that you and your girlfriends have done leftist parliamentary interpellation to prevent children have-nots to have a decent lawyer) EVEN BEFORE AND WITHOUT OBJECTIVE FINDINGS AND TESTIMONY OF THE THIRD ALLEGED VIOLENCE, VIOLENT ARE YOU 'IN SOME WAY AND IN SECULAR PRINCIPLES OF LAW.
There is, in this case is no objective evidence that the girl was not consenting. So saying "she has enjoyed" does not necessarily mean "being favorable to the rapes, but just consider the possibility that the relationship was not forced, but is reported retrospectively as such maybe out of fear of making a public stance judged as too uninhibited, for fear of being misjudged, or repentance for "the day after" for having "let go" (without any violence) prey to the fumes of alcohol and transgression.
could not speak in the affirmative tone of "rape" before the alleged violence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a regular process (possibly with objective evidence and testimonies from third accusation).
understand that a process is regular (and may end establish a truth) only if there is, before the accusation, the right to defense (on equal terms, procedurally speaking), if you can question how much the word of the prosecution than the defense and then to find objective evidence or other any evidence to corroborate one or the other argument and it is not whether either view is taken for true a priori (this is a tautology and not a demonstration of the facts).
understand that if these findings do not exist, a rule of law must rely on the maxim "in doubt the accused (because the case of an innocent person in prison is far more serious than a fault in freedom: it is one thing that the state can not despite the efforts of police and courts to punish a crime already committed by a criminal, another thing is that accomplished from scratch in the first person a crime against an innocent citizen, that is the opposite of that for which it was born, to defend citizens from 'arbitrariness and injustice).
understand that it would set a process in which one party state and public opinion sided with a priori and uncritically by the alleged victim (and just because a woman just because the complainant is a serious matter) and the other only a resigned lawyer tried to defend the accused (unable to see that, objectively, they are still reasonably conceivable version of events in which the defendants are innocent, without being in turn accused of "offending women" for the simple fact of not wanting to believe the word to the girl,
and the difficulty of claiming the same to substantiate the allegations, provide the possibility of feedback or denied to her story, and to demonstrate, before they believed, beyond any doubt the credibility of her subjective and objective person of her testimony, without being a turn accused of "second-violence").
If the kids really had used physical violence and brutality to force a number of their peers non-consenting to one or more sex would be a serious matter.
But it would be just as bad if the girl had been granted without any violence (perhaps because the transgression of alcohol or drunkenness move, from her choices and she is not imposed by anyone) and then he denounced the coetenei (not to take responsibility of their sexual choices, for fear of being misjudged by his family, to keep hidden from the public will be judged as too uninhibited behavior, or caprice, revenge arbitrary pathological need to feel a victim, interest "economic and emotional" in maintaining its reputation as "ivory tower" still advantageous in terms of image appeal " and "high bargaining power" in the economy of love, although it would make you believe otherwise, interest "financial review" in the aim for a refund or free display of social prominence in the show himself and others to be able to ruin the life of someone with his one word)
in doubt, we can not take for granted neither of these assumptions and therefore can not be called a liar bitch the girl nor the young male rapists.
Anyway, even if the boys were guilty of something (done everything to prove)
think twice before marking forever the lives of minors
which, if they really did wrong, they could not have done it for pure evil or conscious disregard for the person, but because it undermined their ability to understand and want from a particular state of abandonment to the fumes of alcohol or intoxication of the senses (or, again, transgression), the consequence of course also a behavior irresponsible and lightweight (just as drunk and start a sort of orgy with the first girl who seemed in principle available), but given the age and inexperience, understandable (though certainly not excusable), or perhaps because even led to mistakes (on the real intentions of the female counterpart to grant or not) by an ambiguity (the girl acted knowingly or unknowingly) that would have risked to deceive even adults not at all willing to do violence.
In any case, especially in the case of minors, we must be certain beyond doubt the actual length and above facts in dispute. Again, not the seriousness of an accusation Euo be evidence of guilt.
PS When I try to counter those who, because of the emotional
told by the newspapers (which, even to create a sensation of psychosis, mixing truth and lies, and facts found a serious matter whose gravity and effective in actual fact they are all on show, with episodes striking and undeniable statistics steady or declining, or at least concentrated at certain times of the publication not only sensational events and emergencies, but at other times everything becomes of secondary importance, in order to create a rolling periods of "emergency rapes," "emergency robbery", "marital emergency crimes" "Emergency drunk at the wheel", etc.. but then leave the topic unless he does more audience) sings
de facto abolition of the presumption of innocence for those accused of sexual assault is, I will reply with answers like this:
"if it were your mother or your sister or your daughter to be raped, set aside your guaranteed ".
If you were also wrong in the argument, replicas (not without reason):
"And if it were your son or your brother or your father or your boyfriend to end up as innocent in the pillory and social media, with their lives ruined forever objectively from every point of view, emotional, economic, moral and report, and the psyche, and sometimes the body indelibly marked by the experience of prison, with all that follows according to the code of barbaric prison for those accused of violence against women, but also according to the politically correct mentality that cast doubt on the word of a woman is already evidence of guilt and "second-violence" and then the awful feeling of knowing how to accuasato who is innocent is similar to that of a victim of the Inquisition, set aside veteromaschilista your horse or your feminist demagoguery. "
