This thread: Deceiving Your Sex Partner Would Be a Crime Under New York Bill
At no time did I make an attempt to personally define Sexual Assault. All I said was " In your opinion, perhaps, but not in the eyes of the law. ". (post #31), which is true. No man with adequate counsel will be convicted of sexual assault where the woman withdraws consent in mid act, for the following reasons:
1) If there are no injuries, AND no witnesses, the police can't even make an arrest, because there is no evidence that an assault took place.
2) If a man went to trial for this alleged criminal offense, it's not a case of 'He said; she said", and the Judge and jury decide whom they believe - that's how Civil Law works. The defense lawyer will tell his client to get a haircut, wear a clean suit, and keep his mouth shut at all times.
3) Assuming that the woman does not lie on the witness stand, the Crown Prosecutor will neglect to ask her if she initially consented to the sexual act. The first question of the cross examination will be "Yes or no, Ms. Doe, did you or did you not consent to the commencement of the sexual act?". If she doesn't answer directly, the defense attorney will ask the Judge to tell the witness to answer the question. As soon as the word "Yes" comes out of her mouth, the defense counsel will say "I have no further questions for this witness". That alone will provide Reasonable Doubt, and the accused will be acquitted. That might not be Justice, but it is The Law.
The Criminal Justice system's primary purpose is to try to ensure that innocent accused s are not found guilty. Convicting offenders is the secondary goal. Criminal cases are meant to be decided based solely on proven facts and evidence alone; that's why 'Justice is blind'. Everything else is just the dog and pony show of lawyer shtick.
Beginning in post #34, Jenesis began a series of personal attacks, founded on conclusions she had made, based on assumptions. By post #46, she was making accusations while quoting me while I had her on Ignore.
Trolls do that all the time. They think it will provoke an angry emotional response. She then recruited a trolling partner in latinboy, to provoke further, but it didn't work. I've seen her use these same tactics for years, against different people who had committed the sin of outdebating her.
Jenesis doesn't understand "Manspeak". Rather than reading what's written as information, she reads emotionally, and arbitrarily decides that someone said something based on what she felt they meant, rather than what they actually said. She then says "So and so said this", without a quote, and that fools the people who start reading a thread from the middle. I chose my words carefully, and frequently edit posts for minor spelling, grammar, punctuation or formatting changes, or to insert additional information. I NEVER remove or modify anything significant; that makes you look bad, if someone has already quoted you while you're altering content of a posted reply. I'm not lenient with people who tell lies about me.
I don't like to fight trolls anymore, but I am good at it. I also like to make examples of those who cross the line between verbal jousting and intentional falsehoods, to discourage other challenges, and for the amusement of myself and the reading audience. That's schadenfreude.
I don't chose my victims; they chose me.
