Weinstein jury deadlocked on most serious sexual assault charges

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

I have not followed the trial at all. Just speaking to what is allowed. Do i dont know the veracity of the evidence.

 

Usually a judge in these long ago cases will warn a jury to be very careful and certain of guilt simply because of the time frame. In my view the only chance of conviction will be if there is evidence from other parties that they knew of it at the time. Basically she has to have told people within a day or so of it happening. Recent complaint evidence.

 

Otherwise no chance. But i dont know the details of it.

And what if the jury doesn't care about what they are legally supposed to do?

It seems in the USA and many other countries many people and especially the media made up their mind that Weinstein is guilty.

I guess for the jurors, living with that media influence for months or years, it is difficult to decide against what many people think.

Because it seems many people make up their minds based on what many others think...

[Tug]

This story is as old as time,that beeing said it doesent make it right

[Sujo]

47 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And what if the jury doesn't care about what they are legally supposed to do?

It seems in the USA and many other countries many people and especially the media made up their mind that Weinstein is guilty.

I guess for the jurors, living with that media influence for months or years, it is difficult to decide against what many people think.

Because it seems many people make up their minds based on what many others think...

A judge determines law. The jury determines fact.

 

If a jury determines a fact that is against the legal evidence then an appeal for unsound verdict the facts dont substantiate. Same as any trial.

 

Jurors are supposed to also use their life skills and common sense. I have seen not guilty verdicts before when by law he is guilty but a jury used common sense to say not guilty. 

[Sujo]

That not guilty verdict was....

 

guy in jail. Food delivered to his cell, was asked if he wanted butter. He said yes. Butter was the term used for a drug. When he realised that between his bread was the drug he told the guy he didnt want it and it was supposed to be for the guy in the other cell.

 

police charged him with trafficking. Jury used common sense to think technically yes, but realistically being in jail and saying its not for him but someone else would be pushing it too far to warrant more jail time. So not guilty.

[Bluespunk]

Lock him up. 
 

Throw away the key. 
 

Let him rot. 

[sead]

12 hours ago, smedly said:

he used his powerful position to abuse women who were after an acting career, worth noting he is not the only person to have done this over the last many decades - powerful men taking advantage in return for a career  

Happens everywhere with people in positions. But not one time did they report him for rape so clearly they knew he would boost their carier and he also knew how to use his position. Now after most of the women are famous thanks to him they see their chance to get back.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Where is the evidence?

 

It seems to be obvious that Weistein used his powerful position to get sex. And at the same time lots of actresses used him and his powerful position to get jobs which, it seems, they didn't get just because of their talent. Is that a crime? Which part? Did he use them or did they use him? Or was it a mutual agreement?

 

If there would be real evidence that he raped any women then he should go to jail. But when an actress, who's job description is to play roles, accuses a guy of raping her 25 years ago then I wouldn't call that evidence because it is no evidence. Maybe it happend, maybe not. Fact is now she can't prove that it actually happend so he should be considered innocent because he is not guilty without doubt.

 

We can also think how this court case would have proceeded 20 years ago, if it would have proceeded at all. Should people now, with the "morality" of 2020 judge what people did more than two decades ago? Decades ago people behaved differently. Some of what was mainstream at that time wouldn't be accepted anymore today. But at that time it was mainstream. Accept it and get over it.

Twenty years ago it was widely believed that rape is something that happens to women, but not to men.

 

Your argument that what was considered the norm twenty years ago also argues a man raped twenty years ago should not be given justice now.

 

 

[metisdead]

An offensive post and the reply has been removed. 

[smedly]

5 hours ago, sead said:

Happens everywhere with people in positions. But not one time did they report him for rape so clearly they knew he would boost their carier and he also knew how to use his position. Now after most of the women are famous thanks to him they see their chance to get back.

so you think what he did was ok - like a win win

 

this ugly fat bastd used his position of power and influence to have his way and if you believe what some are saying - it was rape

 

Happens everywhere with people in positions doesn't make it right

 

funny thing is - old fat ugly farangs - it could be argued are also victims of something similar but in reverse lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smedly]

8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And what if the jury doesn't care about what they are legally supposed to do?

It seems in the USA and many other countries many people and especially the media made up their mind that Weinstein is guilty.

I guess for the jurors, living with that media influence for months or years, it is difficult to decide against what many people think.

Because it seems many people make up their minds based on what many others think...

I will give you a chance of a job if you suck my …….

 

does that sound right to you ? 

 

yes some people might think that is ok - they should be locked up too

[smedly]

16 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Hollywood has functioned this way since its inception. That doesn't excuse it, but people should know that there are a lot more like Harvey in Hollywood.

name a few

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Tug said:

This story is as old as time,that beeing said it doesent make it right

Agree it's morally wrong, but as long as the woman agrees willingly, it isn't illegal.

I saw for myself on a course I did how some of the women on the course were using sexual attraction on the instructors. Seems some people don't realise that some women are predatory in their use of sex appeal to get what they want.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, smedly said:

I will give you a chance of a job if you suck my …….

 

does that sound right to you ? 

 

yes some people might think that is ok - they should be locked up too

The question is not if it is "right", the question is if it is legal.

And maybe it's illegal in the way that it's against some employment law, or maybe extortion - but not rape.

[BritManToo]

12 hours ago, smedly said:

I will give you a chance of a job if you suck my …….

does that sound right to you ? 

Can't say it sounds right, but have to ask how much are you paying?

If it's a $100,000 for a week or twos acting in a movie, I'm game, and I'll pretend I like it.

Edited February 23, 2020 by BritManToo

[Sujo]

10 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The question is not if it is "right", the question is if it is legal.

And maybe it's illegal in the way that it's against some employment law, or maybe extortion - but not rape.

Thays why there is a trial, with evidence, for the jury to decide.

 

There is a rape charge. The judge decides if thete is legally evidence of rape before he allows the jury to decide. He obviously thought there was, legally.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Sujo

[OneMoreFarang]

29 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There is a rape charge. The judge decides if thete is legally evidence of rape before he allows the jury to decide. He obviously thought there was, legally.

An actress, who's job it is to play roles, "remembers" what happend 25 years ago.

Some people might call that evidence... 

[3NUMBAS]

been found guilty

[3NUMBAS]

rape can be poking your finger up the womans openings not necesarilly an erect johnson  .thus rape has many degrees of contention

[sead]

On 2/22/2020 at 9:57 PM, smedly said:

so you think what he did was ok - like a win win

 

this ugly fat bastd used his position of power and influence to have his way and if you believe what some are saying - it was rape

 

Happens everywhere with people in positions doesn't make it right

 

funny thing is - old fat ugly farangs - it could be argued are also victims of something similar but in reverse lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not an English native but is still doesnt understand how you could make out that i thought it was ok. Stop being an internet warrior and just read it for what it was. If you want an answer from me then ask a question, dont answer my questions for yourself. Its like someone borrow money from you 3 times and then ask again for even more and you say NO. Then they go and tell eveyone youre a <deleted> bitch and cheapcharlie. It applies here to. Borrow money from someone to open a hotel and when its bought you tell the guy hes an idiot after he borrowed you. So its the same thing. 

So heres the question that you missed.

Why didnt the girls 80 or so that he raped report him after the rape?