Model accuses Harvey Weinstein of "molesting" her

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
Trump should pardon him, since he never actually raped anyone. I`ve never had any faith in the "justice" system myself, but this is (yet another) confirmation that there is no legal protection at all for men that have been accused of rape, in the Anglosphere at least. Evidence is no longer even considered vital, it`s all about ideology/politics when it comes to rape cases. Act accordingly!
 

kel

Ostrich
Trump should focus on pardoning Roger Stone and Julian Assange.

I think Weinstein got railroaded a bit, but liberal douche hollywood scumbag getting jailed for the wrong reasons is not a hill I want to die on. There are other, less problematic (lol) victims of the justice system he could make into moral battles.
 

jeffreyjerpp

Kingfisher
jordypip23 said:
jeffreyjerpp said:
Nineteen84 said:

The show trial has reached an appropriate finale.

I'm bawling & crying immensely over the fate of Harvey Weinstein. Heheh. Ahhh, how the mighty have fallen...

:banana:

He may be a (((horrible person))), but this is a threatening legal development for men everywhere.

This is now what sends you to prison for decades as a convicted rapist:

ES1vJo9X0AYuJca
 

CaptainS

Hummingbird
CynicalContrarian said:
The Enquirer also said, “Through the years he would frequently stare at her cleavage/breast...

The woman who made a career out of having her nipples showing through a tight shirt is upset someone is looking at her boobs...an unattractive man is looking.

HngSEYs.jpg
 
23 fucking years for a fake rape allegation.

By golly - his heirs will get 50 mio. $ for it if once advanced lie-detectors are mandatory at court and the witnesses and victims get unlarved for what they are.

This is so much bullshit.

And you may think it's nothing until your son refuses to have sex with a feminist 5.5 and then gets put behind bars for a similar crime. It happened in the past even with men who did not have sex with a girl - they only had to have enough looks and SMV in order to be a top-tier catch. There was this case of the good-looking Cambridge student and one insane girl who had a crush on him. In 10 years those men will be serving time with Jerome for being attractive and having said no.
 

Ice

Woodpecker
Simeon_Strangelight said:
23 fucking years for a fake rape allegation.
...
And you may think it's nothing until your son refuses to have sex with a feminist 5.5 and then gets put behind bars for a similar crime. It happened in the past even with men who did not have sex with a girl - they only had to have enough looks and SMV in order to be a top-tier catch. There was this case of the good-looking Cambridge student and one insane girl who had a crush on him. In 10 years those men will be serving time with Jerome for being attractive and having said no.

Yeah everyone who is now laughing about Weinstein and is happy that a "degenerate" Hollywood type is going to prison is just myopic. There's no way this is a fair sentence. Things like this will have consequence for regular guys too. I don't live in the US anymore so it will not affect me personally. But if I still lived there, I would really be paranoid in case I had sex with a girl I don't know well. But even if you know a girl well and been together for a while, you never know what can happen.

It just seems that the sentence is completely random, based on public opinion and feelings.

Also the reactions on Twitter are just crazy, people really gloating about the harsh sentence. It doesn't seem like anyone is really asking if the sentence is fair, he's just the "bad guy" now, is fat and looks ugly, so everyone is like "yeah why not just lock him up for 30 years, he deserves to never get out again."

Just image if such a mob one day turns against you.
 

CaptainS

Hummingbird
Simeon_Strangelight said:
And you may think it's nothing until your son refuses to have sex with a feminist 5.5 and then gets put behind bars for a similar crime. It happened in the past even with men who did not have sex with a girl - they only had to have enough looks and SMV in order to be a top-tier catch. There was this case of the good-looking Cambridge student and one insane girl who had a crush on him. In 10 years those men will be serving time with Jerome for being attractive and having said no.

Remember the Rolling Stone article about Jackie Coakley? She couldn't handle being rejected so decided to destroy the lives of several men and their fraternity chapter.

They won a suit against her but she didn't have to pay - zero repercussions. In fact she was hailed as a hero even AFTER it was revealed to be a hoax! At least she was bringing awareness to "rape culture". Who cares if it's only in feminist's imagination.
 

jcrew247

Kingfisher
Captainstabbin said:
jcrew247 said:
You have to take into account "consent" and the ability to consent without intoxication, threats, bribes, and physical dominance.

Women consent to having sex with Dicaprio and he's never been accused of being rough with anyone, in fact, the stories are about how he is a lazy lover and just listens to his headphones while the women do all the work.

Harvey and Cosby have been accused ...

You don't think Leo gives girls drugs or alcohol? Right. Brad Pitt is known to bang underage girls - they can't legally consent - yet no one has accused him.

The only difference is that Leo and Brad are good looking and women aren't embarrassed to have been with them.

jcrew247 said:
I'm sure the California trial will have more evidence against Weinstein, and more testimony from dozens of women.

Any evidence at all would be a start.

jcrew247 said:
If a man chooses to engage in pre-marital sex, then he must be willing to deal with the consequences if the woman complains.

Should a man have sex, he should just deal with being put in jail by the unsubstantiated testimony of an upset woman? That's crazy.

The prosecution brought 6 witnesses. Harvey had no witnesses and refused to testify. If he was innocent, he should have testified and the jurors would have believed him and other than cheating on his wife and being a adulterer, or paying for sex/bribing women, he would have been found innocent.

Photographic evidence is not the only evidence required.
The police caught Weinstein on tape admitting to groping an actress, that is grounds for attempted rape right there. Harvey should have just paid these women 1K a night if he wanted to cheat on his wife so badly.

The police convict innocent black men of crimes everyday with little evidence and false testimony. But the moment a rich ugly fat white guy gets caught raping dozens of women, he is presumed innocent? If you're going to get mad at injustice, then get angry at the innocent poor black men in jail who cannot afford lawyers.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
jcrew247 said:
Captainstabbin said:
jcrew247 said:
You have to take into account "consent" and the ability to consent without intoxication, threats, bribes, and physical dominance.

Women consent to having sex with Dicaprio and he's never been accused of being rough with anyone, in fact, the stories are about how he is a lazy lover and just listens to his headphones while the women do all the work.

Harvey and Cosby have been accused ...

You don't think Leo gives girls drugs or alcohol? Right. Brad Pitt is known to bang underage girls - they can't legally consent - yet no one has accused him.

The only difference is that Leo and Brad are good looking and women aren't embarrassed to have been with them.

jcrew247 said:
I'm sure the California trial will have more evidence against Weinstein, and more testimony from dozens of women.

Any evidence at all would be a start.

jcrew247 said:
If a man chooses to engage in pre-marital sex, then he must be willing to deal with the consequences if the woman complains.

Should a man have sex, he should just deal with being put in jail by the unsubstantiated testimony of an upset woman? That's crazy.

The prosecution brought 6 witnesses. Harvey had no witnesses and refused to testify. If he was innocent, he should have testified and the jurors would have believed him and other than cheating on his wife and being a adulterer, or paying for sex/bribing women, he would have been found innocent.

Photographic evidence is not the only evidence required.
The police caught Weinstein on tape admitting to groping an actress, that is grounds for attempted rape right there. Harvey should have just paid these women 1K a night if he wanted to cheat on his wife so badly.

The police convict innocent black men of crimes everyday with little evidence and false testimony. But the moment a rich ugly fat white guy gets caught raping dozens of women, he is presumed innocent? If you're going to get mad at injustice, then get angry at the innocent poor black men in jail who cannot afford lawyers.

Jewish guy. Remove them from the white racial grouping, and 'white guys' will suddenly seen a whole lot less wealthy and a whole lot less privileged.

My only problem with Harvey's sentence is that the tax payer has to pay his rent for 23 years.
 

CaptainS

Hummingbird
jcrew247 said:
The police caught Weinstein on tape admitting to groping an actress, that is grounds for attempted rape right there. Harvey should have just paid these women 1K a night if he wanted to cheat on his wife so badly.

It's interesting that you mention that recording. That's what the prosecutor was referring to when he said there was no evidence of a crime.
 

jcrew247

Kingfisher
Captainstabbin said:
jcrew247 said:
The police caught Weinstein on tape admitting to groping an actress, that is grounds for attempted rape right there. Harvey should have just paid these women 1K a night if he wanted to cheat on his wife so badly.

It's interesting that you mention that recording. That's what the prosecutor was referring to when he said there was no evidence of a crime.

Harvey Weinstein was also found innocent and not guilty of 1st degree rape and predatory sexual assault. That's a win for him in my book.

He should have just settled with the 2 accussers in a civil suit, like he did with the dozens of other women in the past. Sexual Harassment is generally a civil lawsuit that is not criminally prosecuted, even if the boss threatens a woman's career and job before raping her, those type of verbal threats do not provide enough evidence since verbal threats do not leave a paper trail, hence the women zone out and pretend the rape is not happening or just give up fighting the larger fatter man. I am curious if he ever gave these women or victims money or gifts. If he gave them 1k per night, then he would have felt entitled to abuse these women with rough kinky perverse degraded sex acts just like run of the mill prostitutes. The defense should have described any gifts he gave them, but that would have left him vulnerable to a prostitution charge, but that would have meant the women could be seen as sex traffickers and arrested for those crimes. I'm curious if Bob Iger knew of Weinstein's settlements with employees of miramax-disney, since those lawsuits would have been known to his employer. Bob Iger just resigned after the jury found Harvey guilty, so maybe it will come out that Disney hid Weinstein's crimes and settled with dozens of accusers.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
^ Criminal cases are brought by "The People" (state) and unlike civil cases can not be "settled" except via a plea deal with the DA...not the alleged victim.

Its clear that you have very little understanding of the legal system(s). That's why your positions are uninformed and purely emotional.
 

jcrew247

Kingfisher
PapayaTapper said:
^ Criminal cases are brought by "The People" (state) and unlike civil cases can not be "settled" except via a plea deal with the DA...not the alleged victim.

Its clear that you have very little understanding of the legal system(s). That's why your positions are uninformed and purely emotional.

WOW WOW, so Kobe Bryant didn't settle with his accuser???

Did the DA force his accuser to testify against her will???

Your unwavering support for Weinstein just proves that you are not even a Christian. I think you should leave this forum as your lack of morals do not follow the path of any man who adheres to the sanctity of marriage and the sin of pre-marital sex and adultery.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
jcrew247 said:
PapayaTapper said:
^ Criminal cases are brought by "The People" (state) and unlike civil cases can not be "settled" except via a plea deal with the DA...not the alleged victim.

Its clear that you have very little understanding of the legal system(s). That's why your positions are uninformed and purely emotional.

WOW WOW, so Kobe Bryant didn't settle with his accuser???

Did the DA force his accuser to testify against her will???

Your unwavering support for Weinstein just proves that you are not even a Christian. I think you should leave this forum as your lack of morals do not follow the path of any man who adheres to the sanctity of marriage and the sin of pre-marital sex and adultery.

No-Country-for-Old-Men_Tommy-Lee-Jones_Josh-Brolin_Javier-Bardem_9.jpg


Its low information people like you that play directly into "the narrative".

Kobe's accuser decided not to testify (and at the end the DA was probably not so gung ho either as her "issues" (bipolar, suicide attempts, promiscuity, depression, etc) started to come to light)...so the criminal case was dropped by the DA.

Kobe settled a civil case separately because A) he did fuck the girl and cheat on his wife B) The money he paid her was chump change to him C) He knew the faster this went away the better.

Get your facts straight.

More over. Ive never once expressed "support" for Weinstein personally. In fact Ive stated that several times. But I dont expect someone like you to see beyond your emotions and grasp a concept like mutual exclusivity.

So let me state it simply:

I dont have to like Weinstein as a person to see that the "evidence" to support a rape charge as defined by law (at least it was prior to this case) was non existent.

Thats my opinion.

Let me put it even more simply

By your "rationale" (used ironically) if someone accused Weinstein of say assassinating Kennedy

If you said "Thats ridiculous"

Then would you be an immoral Weinstein supporter or pro assassination

Youre ridiculous. Take a Pamprin sweety
 
PapayaTapper said:
jcrew247 said:
Your unwavering support for Weinstein just proves that you are not even a Christian. I think you should leave this forum as your lack of morals do not follow the path of any man who adheres to the sanctity of marriage and the sin of pre-marital sex and adultery.
You're ridiculous.

PT, you are responding to a troll.

Within two posts they spread on the black guilt and moral guilt with a too-heavy hand.
 
Top