Caputh wrote:
Actually, Central Scrutinizer, I do remember reading earlier in this thread that you yourself got into a heated argument with another forum member about whether the numbers attached to the description of the crime indicated a) how many rapes had been committed b) whether it was referring to a subsection of the law. You also argued that this site was concerned with only sex crimes against children and another forum member disagreed. Now, I've no idea who is right in this situation and I'm not taking sides - however doesn't this indicate that the info given is an encouragement to gossip, misunderstanding and theory making? As far as this thread goes I think we've (and I include myself) been doing very little else.
Earlier on some posters were indicating that urination in public might have been the offence.
Is there a difference between what kind of rape occurs (male, female, child, animal, after a few drinks, on being lead on, to humilate a partner, falsely accused, incest etc etc) or is everything the same for you? I'd be interested to know.
no i didn't get into a heated argument. i made an error by thinking the (2) signified 2 counts of the crime which was defined as rape by force. I'm re-iterating this point to make clear that there is no debate over whether his crime was peeing in the street. Regarding whether the victim was an adult or underage came from my belief that the site was primarily for those who had committed offences against children. I may be wrong in that, so i withdrew it.
You make no logical sense in your final paragraph. You start off by suggesting once again the offence could have been peeing in the street, then conclude it by asking me if i think all rape is the same???
To answer your question directly and make a point once again i've already made here on numerous occasions, if you'd only have cared to read the thread properly. There is no debate over the nature of the crime, it says rape by force.
I have no intention of answering your last point as i find it insulting, idiotic and i wouldn't lower myself to that level. That's the sort moron-level psychoanalysis you expect from halfwits who don't really have anything to say...but say it anyway.
I will make this point though, his defenders here are offering all sorts of mitigating circumstances, ranging from drink to peeing in the street (surely the most bizarre of them all). They offer these mitigating circumstances without a shred of evidence to support them. I have said nothing more than he was on a sex reigster for the crime of rape by force. I say this with verifiable evidence for everyone to see. So i feel no need to explain my position on this, or defend my position either and i certainly don't see why my morals should be up for scrutiny because of it.
Can everyone defending him ask yourselves this;
If Napi was just some regular black guy with no zappa connections convicted of rape by force. Would you be so quick to offer all these great defence actions in his favour?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
This is too weird for me I’m out