So, after reading the article a number of times I have a question. The victim believed the green gummy to be infused with marijuana, only the victim is blind. How did she know it was green if she can't see?
Blind does not necessarily mean total darkness. Many can see colors, shapes, etc. 20/200 vision is legally blind.
So, after reading the article a number of times I have a question. The victim believed the green gummy to be infused with marijuana, only the victim is blind. How did she know it was green if she can't see?
To be arrested their needs to be probable cause.
If there is probable cause he probably did it.
Probably. But probably isn't good enough.
The police questioned the guy and he admitted that the woman had been there, but insisted that he only took some photos of her and they chatted before she showered and left.
So after a few photos and chatting for a bit she needed to take a shower.
C'mon man!
An unfamiliar, likely not handicapped equipped, hotel shower with her bad vision
Presumably, someone told her? Maybe the guy himself. Or she may not have mentioned the color at all, but the police told the newspaper that it was green while filling in the details. Or the police may have told her "We found green gummy candy that is probably the candy he gave you."
It's good enough that the accused needs to supply reasonable explanations why the evidence found leading to his arrest is not correct.
At the start it is innocent until proven guilty and at the end it is innocent unless proven guilty.
However, at the point that there is enough evidence suggesting guilt to make an arrest this needs to explained away to get back to the point of innocent.
Here's an idea for you: let's get rid of the entire judicial system (attorneys, courts & judges), since according to you, arrest = guilt.
According to a U.S. Justice Department analysis of violent crime in 2016, 80 percent of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf
After reading this thread, is anyone surprised?
Wow. I just went through 8 pages reading comments (from one particular person) that just blew my mind. Link posted. No context whatsoever on why the link was posted, has expectations of how the thread will go, yet somehow still surprised that a negative reaction of a woman being raped and someone arrested happened. Said person then goes on some kind of rant screaming about "innocent until proven guilty" and despite many, many, many eloquent and well thought on posts by others explaining why the reactions are what they are, said person still tries to defend the man arrested.
It is seriously like someone threw some red meat into a lion's cage, and then when the lion eats the meat, the person comes back and asks "why did the lion eat the meat? He didn't have to". Everyone comes back to, "well you threw meat into the cage. Lions eat meat" and the person responds with "but the lion didn't have to eat the meat. He knows his food is usually alive first so when he saw the pre-cut meat, he should have wondered how that happened."
I can guarantee you said person will now respond to this post with no real logic, just some more warped theory. Word of advice to those who post links, please for the love of all that is holy, put CONTEXT into your post so people know WHY you even bothered posting it so we won't go through a billion pages of back and forth stuff. Then again, people do that just because they want the conflict and attention....
An unfamiliar, likely not handicapped equipped, hotel shower with her bad vision
So guilt by association? What does this have to do with the accused here?
Not only that. If in fact she was drugged with marijuana, how the hell is she getting around only hours after being drugged? I read that ingested orally, those effects can last longer than several hours??
Nothing. You do realize there's another person involved, right?
The victim, remember? The human being attached to the two feet?
The report has to do with victims.
I can't explain to you they're important.
So you're ready to convict (in your mind) the accused because of that stat?
Not only that. If in fact she was drugged with marijuana, how the hell is she getting around only hours after being drugged? I read that ingested orally, those effects can last longer than several hours??
Are you seriously under the impression that marijuana paralyzes people?
It was obviously effective enough to incapacitate her, as the article states. The article even states she, "came to" insinuating she was unconscious for a time.
Again...I'm not talking about the accused. This is about the victim. Do you even acknowledge they exist?
If you'd bother to read the report, it talks about victims, and why they don't report sexual assaults.
This thread has been an illustration of one of the reasons why.