I'm not sure what article you read or what you're talking about.
It doesn't say any of that. It says the opposite
Put your head on straight
https://archive.vn/4aaGc#selection-757.0-757.130
The suspect said that more than 30 men had sex with the girl, but that documentation from security cameras would prove that it was not done under duress — that the men stood in line at the entrance to the room while the girl, intoxicated, called for them to come to her one by one.
Then it goes on to say,
The suspect “took advantage of her and slept with her when she was out of control,” the friend said, according to Channel 13 news.
So no one is responsible for their actions while under the influence of alcohol?
What if some drunk bum breaks in to your home at night and murders your wife? Is he suddenly absolved of any blame because he drank before he did this?
Did someone drug her? That would change things.
This is why we have a very renown clause in our constitution that speaks about something along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty".
Did you seriously just see "jews did something bad again" and think, "those darn Jews..." without even reading the rest of the story?
I highly doubt their security cameras have audio and the court is already pressing charges so that's not the whole story. It was even denounced by the government as a human rights violation. And if she's intoxicated, it can be construed as rape. gg
It's rape if she's drunk.
Gotta love feminists, right?
Either way, courts don't rule based on doubt.
Being wrong wouldn't bother me, though.
(post is archived)