-
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The TMF is sponsored by:
Blind woman drugged, raped at interview for foot fetish website: cops
- Thread starter NY ler
- Start date
- Status
Blind does not necessarily mean total darkness. Many can see colors, shapes, etc. 20/200 vision is legally blind.
So true. I'm reminded of that clip that went viral, "I'm legally blind!"
TMF Jeff
TMF owner and co-founder
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 27,055
- Points
- 83
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."
I mean... I could probably sit here all night and come up with various ways that either she might have been informed about the color of the candy, or in fact never knew the color and the phrasing is just not clear within the article that the source of the color was someone else.
Or the newspaper may have mistakenly assumed it was green because they think all marijuana candy is green.
Probably. But probably isn't good enough.
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.
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!
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
And yet, people are questioning her judgment, and how she knew a gummy was green. 'Cause that's what seems odd...
Likely. I was wondering about that part but this and Wolf's explanations make sense.
Anyway, I find it a little weird that Khan said the woman took a shower after they met up when all he did was take pictures of her and talked with her. But everything else seems plausible.
IF he's guilty, he better get a long sentence.
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....
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....
So guilt by association? What does this have to do with the accused here?
Yep, how dare I suggest that one deserves a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. No logic, right?
How dare I post the article without posting any opinion in the original message.
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.
Are you seriously under the impression that marijuana paralyzes people?
So you're ready to convict (in your mind) the accused because of that stat?
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.
TMF Jeff
TMF owner and co-founder
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 27,055
- Points
- 83
You don't know that people on marijuana can get around?
You know that edibles last for a long time, but you have absolutely no idea what the effects are, at all on any level? You don't know if it's like having half a glass of wine, or shooting heroin?
I'm going to be honest - between this, and your bafflement over the color green earlier, it feels like you're not trying hard enough to understand this. These are easily answered questions.
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.
Incapacitated is not the same thing as unconscious.
Again, what relevance does that stat (80% sexual assaults go unreported) have to do with this case? It's cute virtue signaling though.
- Status
