>>22005
I'm not sure why he felt the need to get that close to a woman. A lot of aggression comes from males naturally, so while she wasn't sexually "penetrated" per se in the technical sense, she was indeed sexually assaulted through unwanted physical contact, and the law needs to recognize that these are the same thing.

>>22019>>22019
So if someone falls onto me and touches me without the intention of doing so, I can attack him for sexual assault? Stfu u moron

>>22022
>>22022
Many men feel as you do, that you should be able to touch women whenever and wherever you want as long as it's "accidental", but in the OP, he even admits being close enough to her to touch her (which is creepy already), that actual contact happened, and there was even a question as to whether or not he'd penetrated her... But it's not a valid opinion, you can't just put your hands on a woman, it's 2016, take that shit to /pol/ where it belongs.

That's a part of our law? Holy fuck.
As one of the first and most reasonable law systems in the world I'm suprised thats a thing

>>22025
What part of rush hour do you not understand? Have you ever been in a city train station? No, you've never left your basement you moron.

>>22026
Keeping the names of suspects secret from the lynching public is actually very reasonable

>>22030
I hear you defending rape with the force and determination of someone who is completely certain that this woman was not a target of hostility from a man, but I promise you it happens to every woman, multiple times a day.

>>22037
I hear you defending a woman with the force and determination of someone who is completely certain that women are not capable of manipulating the leftist media to their advantage with moronic false rape accusations, but I promise you, you're just an idiot.

>>22041
>WAKE UP SHEEPLE

>>22043
I'm not trying to come across as a conspiracy nut, but because of people like >>22037 as well as the OP (assuming the man is innocent) the proof that it can happen is right there.

>>22019

>I'm not sure why he felt the need to get that close to a woman. A lot of aggression comes from males naturally, so while she wasn't sexually "penetrated" per se in the technical sense, she was indeed sexually assaulted through unwanted physical contact, and the law needs to recognize that these are the same thing.

So everyone is guilty of assault when accidentally bumping into people?
WONDERFUL PERSPECTIVE, ANON.

So I could say that a man who is trying to get out of an oncoming pedestrians way "trapping someone?"

Or if a woman happens to bump into me in line she is automatically raping me?

Christ, its people like you and the case in the OP that give dipshits like Roosh means of legitimizing their platforms.

>>22025
You go take your shit to Jezebel where you belong.

>>22019
Don't fall for this post, you stupid idiots.

>>22019
>>22025
>>22037
>>22043
This is bait.
Nobody here is that stupid.
Thread closed.

>>22034
Not really, If some woman can get away with accusing anyone of rape, they should feel confident enough not to do so anonymously. Real life isn't 4chan.

If she doesn't like the company of other people, taking public transportation isn't a good option for her.

If getting so close that one might be able to touch you is the same as rape, then that woman id raped 100 times a day. Why doesn't the go ahead and accuse her management / fellow actors?


Clearly the woman is insane and should be locked up for her own safety and general sanity of the public.

The actress was none other than the famed feminist emma watson

>>22182
Actress publicised as being in her 60s so no.

>>22005
>2020
>Come home from work
>Open bedroom door and see my wife being serviced by a superior black male
>I say "hi, honey, hey Jufal", they were having too much fun to hear me
>Change into my other penis cage and go down to the kitchen to make dinner
>30 minutes later, jufal leaves
>ask my wife how it went
>"great, sweetie, i think he may have finally knocked me up this time"
>She fills my bowl in the corner and sits at the table to eat dinner. i don't ask her anything else to avoid raping her
>we go out for groceries
>accidentally brush against a woman's shoulder in the feminine hygiene department
>quickly kneel and lick her shoes as per the new "instant rape-compensation" bylaw. She was kind enough not to press charges
>before bed, i pay homage to our obama shrine, tears in my eyes, the guilt of causing such horrible suffering throughout the world tearing me apart
>take my estrogen pills before curling up on the floor next to my wife's bed

>>22019

I would question what planet you are on, but I doubt I would like the answer. To be honest, this is one time that CCTV actually came to the rescue, because he walked past her and was not able to touch her. In all fairness, I've been on the tube and been both run into and grabbed by women (one time I had nails raked across by back because I was close to a grab rail). This was all accidental, so why the fuck would you be spouting this shit here? Go outside, for fucks sake.

The real question isn't why it went to trial, but why she isn't being sued for slander.

>>22205

Because the law prevents her name being released, which is just carte blanche for her to get off scot free, whilst this guy has to live with this for the rest of his life.

>The Mail on Sunday

You have to post actual news on this board

>>22201
this

>>22019
>while she wasn't sexually "penetrated" per se in the technical sense
Then why was she accusing him of penetrative sexual assault in the technical sense?

>>22034
She isn't the suspect she is a false accuser.

>>22207
Released to the public, he was at the trial and the train station, he knows who accused him and could file suit if he wanted to keep dragging this thing out to make a buck.

>>22201
>2016, Sweden

>>22309
"false"

>>22182
Before you proclaim things, please be sure they're true.

>>22113
>they should feel confident enough not to do so anonymously
The law is in place for any type of accusation, fucktard. It's kinda nice putting forward a case against a big corporation, or your employer without being publicly damagaed.

The problem is the kind of shit that is taken seriously by the law, not the protection of the accusser.

>>22026
Is pretty fucked up. MRAs over there tried to get them to extend the law to people accused of sex crimes too, so guys like the OP wouldn't have their reputation smeared and be subjected to threats and violence. But if course feminists lost their shit about how there's no such thing as false accusations, so the law didn't get any traction.

In the US is not illegal, but all major media outlets refuse to do it for PR reasons. They still won't give Jackie's last name from the rolling stones story. But again, suggesting they do the same for potentially innocent men accused of rape would be rape culture, because it implies that some men accused of rape are actually innocent.

>>22364
>They still won't give Jackie's last name from the rolling stones story.

That's because Jackie never actually existed.

>>22360
>naturally, so while she wasn't sexually "penetrated" per se in the technical sense, she was indeed sexually assaulted through unwanted physical contact, and the law needs to recognize

Are you consciously lying, or just ill informed?

>>22377
Jackie Coakley doesn't exist? That's news to me.

>>22391
He's trolling, obviously. I can't believe so many of you tards fell for it hook line and sinker.

>>22393
Hey man, I don't want Tumblr and "muh feels" and "muh soggy knee" to permeate here.

I have seen the transcripts from the trial. There is ZERO possibility of a rape taking place. The Woman concerned is Souad Fares.

Now the trial has ended the Accused can now decide to sue for civil damages and there may be a chance for a perjury charge.

I am just wondering what this womans motivation was. Did she get annoyed at this man bumping into her and decide to 'teach him a lesson'?

>>22019

>2 entirely different things
>these are the same thing

what in the actual fuck? please tell me you're trolling