Rape Victim Abused and Threatened in Court

ChikiChiki

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Respectfully, I disagree. That’s exactly what it’s doing. I’m not justifying their behaviour, nor do I believe it’s an acceptable way to behave in a Court of Law, but calling for people to be arrested for their behaviour in those circumstances is ridiculously overdramatic and would simply be a waste of time and resources.

Jesus wept:o

That's fine, we will just let people carry out intimidation tactics on the victim with impunity. Not overdramatic, there was a threat made.

ELM327

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The court found them guilty. I’m sure they have right to appeal, but they were found guilty.

That argument didnt work when the Ulster Rugby players were found not guilty...

King of Kings

The lads denied it but they were found guilty in court so its safe to say some people dispute the judgement.
I find it attitude on this thread runs against human nature. If a loved up was sent down for something you believe them to be innocent of surely lashing out at their accuser is natural.

I'd defend a loved one if I believed in their innocence...court judgement or not.

interesting angle in the irish times article when i read it, it was more about these comments than what looks- from similar cases- to be a shakey enough conviction which was then sentenced towards the top of the scale.

threats seem, from what was reported, to have been vague and hardly likely to be the kind of comment that would be followed up- obviously the context changes things somewhat, but then of course the context of a lengthy sentencing also has to be taken into account.

the point about threats to defendants who are cleared is 100% valid of course, and hasnt been answered of course

to elide the question of the fellas ethnicity also imo a deliberate and manipulate choice in the IT article

basically, this wasnt reporting, it was agenda writing.

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, no. It was a question as to whether it was wrong in every situation or just where a female was concerned. A reasonable thing to ask since anewme has come out with many feminist driven threads/posts before.

A woman will do. A "female" - it's not a wildlife documentary

Why is it a reasonable or necessary thing to ask?

It brings nothing other than "she has posted "feminist" stuff - bet she's a hypocrite". Yet again the default suspicion of "defence of woman must mean not a defender of men" when there is zero reason to suspect that. Even if she has posted so called feminist views (I've never seen anewme post anything feminist, just criticism of misogyny, which does not automatically mean feminism... and it does not automatically mean being ok with misandry).

She posted about this case. No other case.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

You said abusive and threatening. Abusive is insults.. And "You'll pay for this" is not a direct threat of violence. It's a vague threat. The recipient will pay. Could have any number of meanings depending on the person making the threat. Maybe God will strike them down? Maybe they'll get a terminal illness?

It's a vague threat. If it had been combined with actual physical violence, or further more specific threats, then it would have been clearer, and actionable. It wasn't.

eh no I didn't

Raconteuse

ELM327 wrote: »

That argument didnt work when the Ulster Rugby players were found not guilty...

True. A different case should totally cloud this one.

One eyed Jack

Sabre0001 wrote: »

To make it simple for everyone, what do you think is an appropriate deterrent for someone who behaves like this?

I would suggest it was left to Gardaí to determine the appropriate course of action. They tend to be a hell of a lot more reasonable than the Executive Director of the RCNI at least.

ELM327

King of Kings wrote: »

The lads denied it but they were found guilty in court so its safe to say some people dispute the judgement.
I find it attitude on this thread runs against human nature. If a loved up was sent down for something you believe them to be innocent of surely lashing out at their accuser is natural.

I'd defend a loved one if I believed in their innocence...court judgement or not.

Same.

Raconteuse wrote: »

True. A different case should totally cloud this one.

It's the same issue, trial by media.

When a man is found guilty they are guilty because the court says so
When a man is found not guilty, they are still guilty in the lives of the media.

Sabre0001

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would suggest it was left to Gardaí to determine the appropriate course of action. They tend to be a hell of a lot more reasonable than the Executive Director of the RCNI at least.

So you suggest it be left to the Gardai and Ms Saidléar said that it's a matter for the Gardai. Glad we cleared that up.

One eyed Jack

Sabre0001 wrote: »

So you suggest it be left to the Gardai and Ms Saidléar said that it's a matter for the Gardai. Glad we cleared that up.

Exactly. That’s why I suggested she was using this case as yet another opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill. She is aware of the fact that these circumstances are handled by Gardaí and she is aware of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, so she’s calling on the Gardaí to do what they do already?

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why are you downplaying this? They had a blatent lack of respect for the law to make such a statement in a court.
Smacks of people who don't give two f*cks about legal consequences, and think that they can just do as they please.

What legal consequences? The court was not in session. They waited until the legal proceeding were finished.

As for downplaying.. I don't see the outrage. The accused was punished. The victim was vindicated, and protected. Case closed. You seem to be ignoring that no formal charge/complaint was made against anyone... The only people getting offended are the posters on this thread.

It doesn't matter if its vague or crystal clear, a threat was made & that's unacceptable to both our legal system and to victims of crimes and shouldn't be tolerated at all.

Of course it matters. Otherwise it's a slippery slope towards controlling everything that people say in public. It was a vague threat with no accompanying gestures of violence (or they would have said there was). You're simply blowing it out of proportion.

Raconteuse wrote: »

A woman will do. A "female" - it's not a wildlife documentary

Ahh I'll use whatever term I wish to use. Both are accurate. Or are you just seeking to promote controlling another persons speech?

Why is it a reasonable or necessary thing to ask?

Because I wanted to know whether it was driven by an agenda, just as you raised the point to see whether I was driven by an agenda. I asked a question, she answered, I acknowledged, and you're the one who can't let it go. (neither I nor anewme have mentioned it since)

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

eh no I didn't

Sorry. Fr_Dougal did.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

What legal consequences? The court was not in session. They waited until the legal proceeding were finished.

As for downplaying.. I don't see the outrage. The accused was punished. The victim was vindicated, and protected. Case closed.


Of course it matters. Otherwise it's a slippery slope towards controlling everything that people say in public. It was a vague threat with no accompanying gestures of violence (or they would have said there was). You're simply blowing it out of proportion.

It doesn't matter that the it wasn't in session, they were in a court of law and thought it would be acceptable to attempt to intimidate a victim. That shows a blatant disregard for the law to me.

Context is what matters here. If some randomer on the street came up to me and said "you'll pay for this", that would be a vague, nonsensical threat that wouldn't be worthy of much consideration.
But when you are in court to support someone who has been convicted of rape, and you choose to direct that statement at the victim?
That is intimidation and it is a threat.

If it isn't a threat, what do you propose it was? What else could they possibly have meant by what they said?

Fr_Dougal

ELM327 wrote: »

That argument didnt work when the Ulster Rugby players were found not guilty...

Be the change you want to see.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

It doesn't matter that the it wasn't in session, they were in a court of law and thought it would be acceptable to attempt to intimidate a victim. That shows a blatant disregard for the law to me.

Ok. You keep referring to the law. Show me where they broke the law with their behavior. Why do you think the court officials didn't intervene if the law had been broken?

Context is what matters here. If some randomer on the street came up to me and said "you'll pay for this", that would be a vague, nonsensical threat that wouldn't be worthy of much consideration.
But when you are in court to support someone who has been convicted of rape, and you choose to direct that statement at the victim?
That is intimidation and it is a threat.

It's a threat without any form, or accompanying gestures/actions to reinforce the perception of violence/danger. Anyone could argue themselves out of an arrest by referring to many possible meanings, none of which refer to direct harm by the person speaking.

You expect the Gardai to arrest someone for that. Fine. What happens next? What are they charged with and how are they punished? How do you realistically prove that dangerous intent was contained within the threat, and it wasn't an "understandable" emotional outburt that they truly didn't mean. (Understandable because I can imagine what their defense would be like)

Or did you just want them arrested and.. then nothing?

If it isn't a threat, what do you propose it was? What else could they possibly have meant by what they said?

I never said it wasn't a threat. I said it wasn't a direct threat that could be followed up on. And I also said that no formal charge/complaint was made.

gmisk

Just saw on the journal...a woman has been arrested by gardai investigating "threats to kill".

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh I'll use whatever term I wish to use. Both are accurate. Or are you just seeking to promote controlling another persons speech?



Because I wanted to know whether it was driven by an agenda, just as you raised the point to see whether I was driven by an agenda. I asked a question, she answered, I acknowledged, and you're the one who can't let it go. (neither I nor anewme have mentioned it since)

That's exactly the issue. Suspicion of an agenda (for no reason) and whatabouting, rather than just focusing on the case in question.

Not seeking to control anyone's speech, just giving a view.

I'm sorry for having a go but just sick of seeing "if it were a man" stuff directed at women.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Arrested for what? No physical violence. No serious threats. Saying "You're going to pay for this" is too vague a threat for the Gardai to act upon.

There was no actual actionable abuse here. Such shouting is common enough in court rooms, when supporters are unhappy with a verdict. Would you have females who shout abuse when a rape claim fails in court, to be equally arrested?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/call-for-garda-to-investigate-threats-to-victim-of-sexual-abuse-1.4176723 (you really should have posted the link to the article)

"“No formal complaints have been made by any parties at this time."

Contempt of court at the very least, one would expect.

And verbal abuse with threatening language is still abuse.

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

That's exactly the issue. Suspicion of an agenda (for no reason) and whatabouting, rather than just focusing on the case in question.

Not seeking to control anyone's speech, just giving a view.

I'm sorry for having a go but just sick of seeing "if it were a man" stuff directed at women.

You're welcome to check my threads/posting history. but you'll rarely, if ever, see me use the "reverse the genders" line. I am active on male rights and feminism related threads, just as others are like yourself, and anewme.

And I will always check if I feel there is an agenda being driven. Just as many others on boards will. We do live in a society which has a lot of agendas running with regards to gender. I felt it worth checking in this instance because of the phrasing of her original post. Do notice that I wasn't aggressively querying her post. I asked a question, she answered, and it was left at that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Contempt of court at the very least, one would expect.

Court wasn't in session. The shouting did not occur before or during the court.

And verbal abuse with threatening language is still abuse.

Sure... and I'm still waiting to see how they broke the law. (and I don't know that there isn't a law that they broke by doing so.. I'm waiting patiently for someone to provide the info)

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. You keep referring to the law. Show me where they broke the law with their behavior. Why do you think the court officials didn't intervene if the law had been broken?

Please quote where I said they broke a law, I said they had no respect for the law and showed a blatant disregard for the court. That shows me what kind of people they are, that they think that's an acceptable way to conduct themselves.

It's a threat without any form, or accompanying gestures/actions to reinforce the perception of violence/danger. Anyone could argue themselves out of an arrest by referring to many possible meanings, none of which refer to direct harm by the person speaking.

You expect the Gardai to arrest someone for that. Fine. What happens next? What are they charged with and how are they punished? How do you realistically prove that dangerous intent was contained within the threat, and it wasn't an "understandable" emotional outburt that they truly didn't mean. (Understandable because I can imagine what their defense would be like)

Or did you just want them arrested and.. then nothing?

I never said it wasn't a threat. I said it wasn't a direct threat that could be followed up on. And I also said that no formal charge/complaint was made.

It really wasn't though, they were present in court to support the accused and the threat was made to the victim.
That's form to me.
There is enough context to reasonably believe that they might have been real threats that could potentially be acted upon.

What else could they possibly have meant? I'm sure they are aware of how statements like that could be inferred, so why make them if they meant no harm?
Some sort of charge for a public order offence wouldn't go amiss, for threatening and intimidating a person in a public place.
It isn't acceptable behaviour and they should at a minimum be investigated for it.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

A reasonable thing to ask since anewme has come out with many feminist driven threads/posts before.

anewme, answered that it wasn't and such threats should be considered negative in any situation... and I said fair enough. Which it would be.

Now now now, lets be clear here. I do not consider myself to be feminist, or start feminist threads or posts.

Pointing out discrimination or disagreeing with the incel woman bashing posts here is not feminism, nor should it be treated as such. I will always disagree with them.

My post was a transcript of a newspaper article and clearly said

"One woman shouted obscenities and another person shouted, “You’re a liar” and “You’re going to pay for this”."

Yet you immediately asked me what if it was a woman. It was a woman (one of them anyway)
Yet you were too quick to jump the gun and accuse me in the wrong and of having an Agenda.

The point here, which in your haste to make it anti man - is that a rape victim was abused in a Court of Law and this verbal abuse and threats were allowed happen. This is wrong, be it men or women (I wont get into the male vs. female bull**** - as someone else said we are not lizards on a David Attenbourough Doc)

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please quote where I said they broke a law, I said they had no respect for the law and showed a blatant disregard for the court. That shows me what kind of people they are, that they think that's an acceptable way to conduct themselves."

"Smacks of people who don't give two f*cks about legal consequences, and think that they can just do as they please."

Legal consequences apply when a law is broken. Yes?

As for the type of people they are, I have no idea. The article gives no details about them.

It really wasn't though, they were present in court to support the accused and the threat was made to the victim.
That's form to me.
There is enough context to reasonably believe that they might have been real threats that could potentially be acted upon.

For you, perhaps. For the Gardai or court officials, not so much.

What else could they possibly have meant? I'm sure they are aware of how statements like that could be inferred, so why make them if they meant no harm?

I'm sure they intended it as an insult, and a threat. Perhaps simply that Karma is a bitch? As I've said, there was no extra sign of violence or hostility reported in the article.

Some sort of charge for a public order offence wouldn't go amiss, for threatening and intimidating a person in a public place.
It isn't acceptable behaviour and they should at a minimum be investigated for it.

Then make a formal charge against them, and the Gardai will investigate the matter.

Fr_Dougal

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, no. It was a question as to whether it was wrong in every situation or just where a female was concerned. A reasonable thing to ask since anewme has come out with many feminist driven threads/posts before.

anewme, answered that it wasn't and such threats should be considered negative in any situation... and I said fair enough. Which it would be.

You must be confusing anewme with another poster, she is very balanced in all her posts and is the first to call out bs.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Yet you immediately asked me what if it was a woman. It was a woman (one of them anyway)

Actually, no I didn't. Since I read the full article.

Me: "There was no actual actionable abuse here. Such shouting is common enough in court rooms, when supporters are unhappy with a verdict. Would you have females who shout abuse when a rape claim fails in court, to be equally arrested?"

I didn't ask if it was a woman... yes?

Yet you were too quick to jump the gun and accuse me in the wrong and of having an Agenda.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked a question. I think you might want to reread what I posted....

The point here, which in your haste to make it anti man - is that a rape victim was abused in a Court of Law and this verbal abuse and threats were allowed happen. This is wrong, be it men or women (I wont get into the male vs. female bull**** - as someone else said we are not lizards on a David Attenbourough Doc)

I didn't even refer to anything being anti-male, nor did I make this about gender. I asked a simple question, and you're bending over backwards to paint me as being unreasonable.

Shouting in court cases which have strong emotional content, such as a rape claim, is common enough. I asked whether you would feel the same about someone shouting such abuse if a rape claim failed... You answered my question. Fair enough... and i left it at that. Now, you're coming back to make this about gender.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You must be confusing anewme with another poster, she is very balanced in all her posts and is the first to call out bs.

Nope... I've had different experiences... but each to their own.

Stepping Stone

It seems that it’s being taken seriously enough. https://www.thejournal.ie/threats-to-kill-rape-trial-5014683-Feb2020/

"The woman was arrested on foot of a complaint received by gardaí. "

There we go. Official complaint was made. Sorted.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

Shouting in court cases which have strong emotional content, such as a rape claim, is common enough. I asked whether you would feel the same about someone shouting such abuse if a rape claim failed... You answered my question. Fair enough... and i left it at that. Now, you're coming back to make this about gender.

In my op, I said it was terrible that it was allowed happen. I clearly said it was a woman who shouted abuse.

Yet you still feel justified to ask would you have females who shout abuse when a rape claim fails in court, to be equally arrested?

Why do you think I would not? Even asking that question shows you have an Agenda, or feel I do.

I don't.