The Gaming Den

Zine wrote:It was actually the authorities that were late in pressing charges.

I thought that the prosecutors had already thrown the case out due to insufficient evidence, then were encouraged to pick it back up again.

NYT explains this is actually normal for the Swedish judicial review process. The case is reviewed at various levels, and even if it's rejected it's bumped up to a higher court for further review.

Post thinks the timing is political though.

Kaelik wrote:

cthulhu wrote:Indeed, and pissed enough to file charges later!

Oh you mean after she found out he had already slept with her friend?

Seriously, how fucking retarded do you have to be to not see cause and effect:

1) Had sex without condom.
2) Bought Train Ticket, not pissed off.
3) Found out slept with friend, who has posted online about her pursuit of revenge.
4) Suddenly really pissed off now, clearly 1 was the cause of this, not 3. No way did her friend out for revenge convince her at all.

I'm not at all clear why you don't think that the combination of THREE and ONE might be the issue taht upgraded it from annoying, but forgetable to fucking what?

Let me posit and alternative scenario

A) We have consensual sex without a condom

B) We have consensual sex without a condom, but I don't tell you I've got chlamydia and later you're pissing glass.

Do you think you might be pissed off later in scenario B, when at the time you where perfectly fine with it? The fact that the women only filed rape charges once it became clear that she's had unprotected sex against her will with half of fucking Europe (because let's be clear, Assange has a pattern of unprotected sex with multiple different people and doesn't give a shit about what he might be picking up and spreading around, because there is no way in hell he got tested between girl A and girl B. And he clearly knows how to pick up, because he has two partners in a week and doesn't think anything of it)

I'd be pissed as all get up if that happened to me. Fuck knows what you might catch doing that - some of it isn't curable either. Shit he could have caught HIV off some chick three weeks ago and not even know it when he's banging you. Without a condom.

So your argument is that it became non consensual because of something that didn't occur?

I mean... I don't know. Really? I guess that sounds really bang up solid to you, but to mean that sounds like insanity.

If someone asks to have sex without a condom, I assume they usually have sex without a condom. Why would later finding out that he had sex without a condom mean anything at all?

The events where always non consensual you retard, what changed was her decision to press charges.

We can see by the world media blow up why you might not decide to go with charges initially

cthulhu wrote:The events where always non consensual you retard, what changed was her decision to press charges.

We can see by the world media blow up why you might not decide to go with charges initially

No seriously. Stop being retarded. He asked for sex without condom. She asked him to use condom. He said he didn't want to use condom. She agreed to sex without condom.

That last part. It's called consenting. To sex without condom. That makes it consensual. That's what consensual means.

You must misreading something

The unredacted police report obtained by The Guardian says that after arriving at her apartment the two had sex using a condom. In the report, she described waking up to find him having sex with her again, without a condom.

Emphasis mine.

That, right there, is rape. If I stick my dick in you, without asking you and without having obtained your prior consent, that is rape. Straight up. No questions. Now, a possible defence is that he had obtained prior consent. Which would be a valid argument if he stuck his dick in her with a condom.

The specific charge is even outlined further on:

The assertion that Mr. Assange initiated sex without a condom while Ms. W was asleep led the prosecutors to list rape among the allegations they wanted to explore with Mr. Assange, according to testimony in a London court.

Emphasis mine.

So now your strategy is to change the conversation to talking about the other person mid conversation and not tell anyone else?

Yes, they other accusation from the other person is actually possibly worth evaluating. I would like to know if prior consent was given, as far as I can tell from so far released information, the closest thing to prior consent was her consenting to sex without a condom the night before. That could go either way depending on a lot of things.

It's also completely irrelevant to the person we were actually talking about, who woke up to him not having sex with her, then consented to sex without a condom.

That is the only allegation I have ever talked about in this entire thread. If you where talking about something else I misunderstood you.

I would like to know if prior consent was given, as far as I can tell from so far released information, the closest thing to prior consent was her consenting to sex without a condom the night before. That could go either way depending on a lot of things.

She did not consent to sex without a condom before falling asleep.

Unless you where in the room with them you don't know cthulhu, that's for the courts to determine.

Hell's yeah, except I don't think he's going to extradited any time soon, so lets talk turkey.

cthulhu wrote: Now, a possible defence is that he had obtained prior consent. Which would be a valid argument if he stuck his dick in her with a condom.

You see now this right here is wrong and stupid.

If he had consent to have sex with her with a condom once that does NOT actually grant consent for the alleged "sex by surprise" LATER.

And it doesn't actually matter if he had a condom on, if that was rape it is STILL rape with a condom. Admittedly courts have a tendency to imagine condoms have the same magical rape negating powers as a pair of jeans, but still I would be prepared to call it rape.

BUT, it is VERY hard for them to actually make it anywhere with the rape allegations because the victim did not protest to Assange at the time. Now I know that I might possibly be convinced by a woman that she was raped like that and for whatever reason didn't protest at the time, or indeed show any signs at all of dismay for some time after. But I know that it is well near impossible to prove that in court and it's pretty stupid to try.

Indeed Cthulhu's OWN assumption that it would be fine, with a condom, is basically the very reason REAL rape cases are so damn hard to prosecute. Because there he is, right there, his assumption is Assange got permission to have sex with her with a condom once, and therefore had that permission indefinitely afterwards.

And no "she LATER found out he had sex with others! So it BECAME RAPE LATER ON!!!!" is a fucking STUPID argument Cthulhu. It is NOT rape to have consensual sex with someone and have them later regret it based on discoveries about you. Plenty of people regret consensual sex based on such things as false pretenses, lies or their own wishful thinking on a regular basis and that is not rape that is just regretting your OWN choices that society regards YOU as being responsible for.

Now sure, in a case of HIV or at a stretch even a minor STD something you might just have a case for say, something like Manslaughter, that sort of thing has SOME (rather poor) precedent. But actually even then you STILL DO NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON FOR "Retroactive Rape Due to Later Revelations About A Consensual Sex Partner".

And short of premeditated transfer of an actual fatal or significantly crippling disease you will have a hard time making a case because seriously are you shitting me? Do you think everyone out there who got themselves a case of whatever minor crotch itch can or even should seriously be out there charging their casual and CONSENSUAL sex partners with retroactive rape, or indeed ANYTHING? Are you fucking INSANE.

I mean hell, to my knowledge they aren't even alleging he pulled some "trust me baby I only do this with you" line. So he didn't even attempt to deceive her about these alleged habits of his that can, in Cthulhus twisted mind, magically make consensual sex retroactively transform into rape.

Yeah. People totally didn't read the two articles I posted concerning Swedish rape laws and the actual facts of the case.

I kinda feel sorry for the NYT and the Washington Post. It's clear they put a bit of effort into seperating fact from fiction in that case but nobody seems to care.

PhoneLobster wrote:

cthulhu wrote: Now, a possible defence is that he had obtained prior consent. Which would be a valid argument if he stuck his dick in her with a condom.

You see now this right here is wrong and stupid.

If he had consent to have sex with her with a condom once that does NOT actually grant consent for the alleged "sex by surprise" LATER.

And it doesn't actually matter if he had a condom on, if that was rape it is STILL rape with a condom. Admittedly courts have a tendency to imagine condoms have the same magical rape negating powers as a pair of jeans, but still I would be prepared to call it rape.

I mean hell, to my knowledge they aren't even alleging he pulled some "trust me baby I only do this with you" line. So he didn't even attempt to deceive her about these alleged habits of his that can, in Cthulhus twisted mind, magically make consensual sex retroactively transform into rape.

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about

A) He raped her, no question. I even said that. What the fuck are you talking about

B) I'm actually SAID she obviously changed her mind about pressing charges, so your last paragraph is the usual delusional shit I've come to expect from you. What the fuck are you even smoking? When did I say that? Are you a fucking moron?

C) Now, if you'd like, read anything before mouthing off, you'd know that the courts sometimes take consent to be implied under some circumstances. All I said that was he could, on the evidence presented, make a defense that consent was implied if he had fucked her with a condom. I have no idea if that would be successful.

cthulhu wrote: When did I say that? Are you a fucking moron?

cthulhu wrote:Let me posit and alternative scenario

A) We have consensual sex without a condom

B) We have consensual sex without a condom, but I don't tell you I've got chlamydia and later you're pissing glass.

Do you think you might be pissed off later in scenario B, when at the time you where perfectly fine with it? The fact that the women only filed rape charges once it became clear that she's had unprotected sex against her will with half of fucking Europe(because let's be clear, Assange has a pattern of unprotected sex with multiple different people and doesn't give a shit about what he might be picking up and spreading around, because there is no way in hell he got tested between girl A and girl B. And he clearly knows how to pick up, because he has two partners in a week and doesn't think anything of it)

Hi there, looks like SOMEONES the "fucking moron". You CLEARLY made the argument that if you discover someone you had consensual sex with is promiscuous it is totally cool to accuse them of raping you.

Because apparently the chance that maybe they might have had an STD that they didn't and which you consensually risked in full knowledge at the time anyway magically makes it retroactive rape.

Or do you want to back away and admit you were either wrong or deliberately misleading everyone with irrelevant bullshit on that entire post then?

I posted that as an example in response to this question from Kaelik

"If he raped her, why didn't she go to the police straight away, rather than waiting around then pressing charges"

It was just to illustrate that subsequent events might cause you to take a different course of action. You are reading some bizarre interpretation of why I posed that hypothetical into it.

I never suggested that fucking someone while I had an undisclosed STD was rape - it's not, it's conduct endangering life which is an entirely different criminal offense.

Though, if she had of consented conditionally to sex on the basis that you didn't have an STD, and then subsequently found out that you did, imho, that would probably be rape - though legally it's conduct endargering life.

I don't actually know or understand how Swedish law works with rape. Just the fact that they even have a category of "Rape: Least Severe" fucking blows my mind. I can't even begin to comment on the intricacies of a legal case which revolves around whether someone met the strict legal criteria for "sex by surprise" - that's a world of legal minutiae that I can't even begin to fathom.

However, regardless of whether he broke Swedish Law or not, which I couldn't hazard a guess about either way, he does not seem to have done anything wrong. Which is a different question than whether he broke the law or not.

The woman's initial complaint to the police was to get them to go hunt him down and make him get tested for STDs - apparently Swedish police can do that and have nothing better to do because there is no real crime in Sweden. When their Swedish equivalent of a DA looked at the matter at hand, he dropped it for lack of evidence, and it was only reopened due to political pressure.

But there's no new evidence that anyone will admit to. It's still the same "she-said, he-left-the-fucking-country" that their Swedish DA laughed at as a waste of time. As in, without any counter testimony at all, the prosecuting authority looked at the "victim's" recounting of the events and said "Are you fucking kidding me? Get this off my desk."

-Username17

cthulhu wrote: C) Now, if you'd like, read anything before mouthing off, you'd know that the courts sometimes take consent to be implied under some circumstances. All I said that was he could, on the evidence presented, make a defense that consent was implied if he had fucked her with a condom. I have no idea if that would be successful.

It shouldn't be, and it shouldn't be legally defensible. Implied consent is bullshit, and why marital rape was legal for so long (and is still hard to prosecute). If you don't KNOW the person you're with wants to fuck, because they have TOLD you so, you shouldn't be fucking them. Period.

Frank wrote: However, regardless of whether he broke Swedish Law or not, which I couldn't hazard a guess about either way, he does not seem to have done anything wrong. Which is a different question than whether he broke the law or not.

Hold up...are you saying that even if her allegations are true, he didn't do anything wrong, or that it's obvious her allegations are bullshit?

Because if he did have "surprise sex" with her, he raped her. If she told him to stop because of the broken rubber and he didn't, he raped her. That's not even a matter of debate.

If you meant that the fact that her account was dismissed so easily means it's obviously crap...I don't have your faith in law-enforcement, be it Swedish or anything else. Because valid rape cases that actually occur are dismissed and disregarded all the time. I haven't seen enough evidence to know one way or another, but I also haven't seen enough to completely clear Assange and convince me of his innocence.

PoliteNewb wrote:

cthulhu wrote: C) Now, if you'd like, read anything before mouthing off, you'd know that the courts sometimes take consent to be implied under some circumstances. All I said that was he could, on the evidence presented, make a defense that consent was implied if he had fucked her with a condom. I have no idea if that would be successful.

It shouldn't be, and it shouldn't be legally defensible. Implied consent is bullshit, and why marital rape was legal for so long (and is still hard to prosecute). If you don't KNOW the person you're with wants to fuck, because they have TOLD you so, you shouldn't be fucking them. Period.

Yeah I agree it's dumb.

*sigh*

*points to the Washington Post article*

There is no "Surprise Sex" law in Sweden.

Read the article, as it explains what the charges actually are and what it's based on.

PoliteNewb wrote:It shouldn't be, and it shouldn't be legally defensible. Implied consent is bullshit, and why marital rape was legal for so long (and is still hard to prosecute). If you don't KNOW the person you're with wants to fuck, because they have TOLD you so, you shouldn't be fucking them. Period.

No. You are dumb. People have mouths. This means that they are capable of telling you to not have sex with them.

So if your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/person who had sex with you last night is conscious, capable of speaking, and you go to have sex with them, they can actually say "Stop" or "No" you don't have to confirm with a yes/no question if you are in a circumstance where sex is an appropriate action.

If you are out with your girlfriend to celebrate your anniversary, and you both go home, and make out in the same fucking bed, and take off all your clothes, you don't need to ask, because she can actually say no.

Likewise, if you wake up in the morning, having had sex last night, and slept in each others arms all night, and then, you make preliminary motions towards sex, you can be told to stop. This doesn't excuse the alleged "Surprise sex" in the morning, if it occurred when she was asleep, and no consent was received the night before. But let's be clear, you can genuinely have sex with conscious people without asking them a specific question because of implied consent.

PoliteNewb wrote:Because if he did have "surprise sex" with her, he raped her. If she told him to stop because of the broken rubber and he didn't, he raped her. That's not even a matter of debate.

Those are two different people. One of them is alleging she woke up to a dick in her. That's the "surprise sex." And if true, and there are no other factors whatsoever (expressed consent the night before, she's lying, he asked her while she was groggy and she said yes, so he thought she consented even though she didn't, ect.) that's an issue. But the other one, condom broke girl, is a fucking joke. The condom broke, she didn't tell him to stop, and she admits that she didn't tell him to stop, and then she consents to sex without a condom.

You know what. Fuck it. Let's post actual snippets from the article because people here don't want to read.

From Washington Post:

The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

How the hell does that scrawny fuck hold down his shoes with his weight, let alone a full grown human?

Prak_Anima wrote:How the hell does that scrawny fuck hold down his shoes with his weight, let alone a full grown human?

Am I really going to have to start digging up Assange's actual weight and height just to disprove more of this nonsense?

I don't have his weight, but The Guardian describes him as "tall".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/ju ... Dybk-VPnSw

Everything about this is odd. Julian Assange, the founder, director, frontman, guiding spirit of global whistleblowing service WikiLeaks looks a bit odd for a start. Tall, cadaverous, dressed in ripped jeans, brown jacket, black tie, battered trainers. Somebody says he looks like Andy Warhol with his prematurely white hair, but I can't remember who, which will bother the hell out of him because accuracy is everything.

So he's not some guy who's as light as a kid. He's scrawny, but he's tall.

Ok, fair enough. I haven't cared enough to really follow... anything about the case. So I was going off of pics I've seen, and none of them have given me any reason to think he was exceptionally tall.