Skitzocow Alex Knapik-Levert / Dare / ispsychiatryascam - Aspiring rapist, woman beater, God's autistic gift to Tribes 1, Lowtax's biggest fan, Feminists' worst brain-damaged enemy

ispsychiatryascam said:
ive also been jumped by hotter womyn than any of you have ever got with and am related to some too
Click to expand...
Time to face-dox one of them.
1652194994973.png
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Gaius Cumulus, HERHERHERHER, BruceyBoy and 4 others
alright obsessive sjw go rat noise urself all u want its boring and you should kill yourself or let me help you do it

please keep messaging me so i can further justify killing you
 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Troonos
ispsychiatryascam said:
alright obsessive sjw go rat noise urself all u want its boring and you should kill yourself or let me help you do it

please keep messaging me so i can further justify killing you
Click to expand...
Alright I’ll let you help do it, what’s the game plan Captain Alex?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HERHERHERHER and Useful_Mistake
uhhhh stfu autistic sjw trash get banned already

this is the kind of shit you people are trying to lynch mob over btw

Yeah. So to preface people are going to say I'm defending Hoggard, I'm not, just wanted to state what the law is.

Your article has the R v W D test, which is important. Basically has 4 elements needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) If the jury believes the defendants evidence, they must acquit

2) If the jury does not believe the defendant but is still left with reasonable doubt, they must acquit

3) if they are not left in doubt but after reviewing all evidence, don't believe the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit.

So this basically means even if the witness is convincing, the defendant is obviously lying, but the government just doesn't have enough evidence to prove the defendants guilt, they have to acquit.



In sexual assault cases there are specific things that must be proven. The government must prove

1) An assault took place

2) It took place at the time stated

3) It took place at the place stated

4) That there was no consent, and there was no mistaken belief in consent.

Number 4 is key, as the victim and government have to prove that the defendant should have known beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent.



The difficulty with these kinds of cases is that there often is no real evidence other than testimony. If I was to stab you and you tell police, its obvious some important evidence would be a stab wound, blood, maybe my fingerprints on the knife, and maybe some other evidence proving I was there stabbing you like security footage. In these kinds of sexual assault there is none of that evidence. It's like if you say I stabbed you and you tell the police 2 years later, but you have no knife, no stab wound, and no evidence I was there but your testimony. It's going to be a tough sell
Click to expand...

that guy is married and well off still

maybe he'll get convicted

i could care less


ive seen almost famous and think the whole case is dumb much like most sexual assault cases these days and domestic violence cases

because ive lived them and ive lived worse



its only really gay creepy stalkers that get hung up on this shit and want to vigilante justice for people


here;s a pic of the girl i love but she clearly does not look like she's doing well compared to what she used to be and it has more to do with the sadness in her face than her weight gain

i really hope she isn;'t effected by this website with having her real name posted on the internet all over

 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Troonos
  • Like
Reactions: HERHERHERHER and Useful_Mistake
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back