Replies

This attempt at exploiting the semantics in such a situation is feeble. Am I to believe that if a murderer claims that his victim didn't say "stop" before he killed him, he 'only' said "you better get out of my house" that he would be innocent of his crime? Rape is a crime with a long history of people trying to 'blame' the victim.

Let me put it to you this way: how plausible is it that a girl who was engaged in sex without consent would, for 90 seconds, be able to come up with a more emphatic statement than "I should be going now", or "I need to go home"? Frankly I'd find her case much more compelling if she'd been trying to physically remove him but been unable to say anything.

Frankly, statements like she made could very reasonably be interpreted as "Hurry up, I haven't got all day". Since, presumably by the girl's own testimony, she failed to make any effort to correct such an apparent misunderstanding, I find it hard to believe that her real removal of consent wasn't retrospective.

Frankly I'd find her case much more compelling if she'd been trying to physically remove him but been unable to say anything.

Perhaps she was trying to physically remove him too. The article is so short and doesn't give many specifics about the case in question except for the recent decision of the justices.....so, I'm afraid for some things we will all be giving 'the benefit of the doubt' to one person or another - the guy or the girl.

be able to come up with a more emphatic statement than "I should be going now", or "I need to go home"?

She said.....I should be going now"

He heard....."I'm about to c*m"

She said...."I should be going now"

He heard...."That's it. You're hitting the spot."