General Discussion

one_voice

(20,043 posts)

91. From his own

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:01 PM

Mar 2015

alleged rapey lips:

Prosecutors allege that after Hossain was arrested in his dorm, he told officers he was trying to re-create scenes from “Fifty Shades of Grey” and he knew he’d done “something wrong,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/college-student-accused-of-rape-claims-he-was-reenacting-50-shades-of-grey/?tid=sm_tw

He knew he'd done something wrong. HE SAID those words. Whatcha think he thought he did wrong?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

108 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge throws out case against UIC student charged with '50 Shades of Grey' assault [View all] one_voice Mar 2015 OP

That film is going to have destructive effects for a long time Wella Mar 2015 #1

What if the movie had nothing to do with this case? Wellingtom Mar 2015 #2

Because a victim isn't acting out a movie, the perp very well can. Esp since that IS what the movie uppityperson Mar 2015 #3

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #31

I'm not sure what you mean. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #4

he wasn't "cleared" Nevernose Mar 2015 #5

NBC: "A judge on Thursday cleared a University of Illinois Chicago student of a rape" Wellingtom Mar 2015 #33

"Prosecutors have not decided whether they might still seek an indictment against Hossain" uppityperson Mar 2015 #6

Probably a poor choice of wording on my part. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #7

Or found what they consider enough probably cause to be worth spending the money to uppityperson Mar 2015 #8

Well, generally in our system, unless a person is convicted of something... NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #9

Words fail me. You do know it isn't necessary for a court to rule someone guilty to have them uppityperson Mar 2015 #10

"I think we may be arguing different things here." NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #11

A person is not considered legally guilty until they get convicted, but they can be plenty guilty in uppityperson Mar 2015 #12

if they're not convicted, you (random person) don't know that they're guilty and shouldn't claim ND-Dem Mar 2015 #14

Nope. Me, random person, can have an opinion based on the information available and not uppityperson Mar 2015 #15

your opinion is based on bupkis ND-Dem Mar 2015 #16

I saw a person steal something, they are guilty of theft. Are you guilty of anything? uppityperson Mar 2015 #17

Exactly. The idea that one can only form an opinion about anything if they're sitting on a jury kcr Mar 2015 #20

did you see anything in this case? were you involved? no, you read something on the internet, bfd ND-Dem Mar 2015 #22

Speaking of reading comprehension, let's look at this subthread. Aha! Strawman shows up. uppityperson Mar 2015 #23

your opinion about this case, which isn't based on anything listed above, is based on bupkis & ND-Dem Mar 2015 #26

And there is your fallacy. My opinion is about whether or not it is possible to be guilty without uppityperson Mar 2015 #27

"You read something on the internet" snooper2 Mar 2015 #105

Just turn it around. Ask them if they ever boston bean Mar 2015 #68

I read something on the internet; you are to blame for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #77

Are you saying instructions for judges should be made less strict? Wellingtom Mar 2015 #29

Where did I "argued that strict judge instructions allowed a rapist to win a case"? uppityperson Mar 2015 #30

You, random person on the internet, don't get to tell other people what to do kcr Mar 2015 #18

random people on the internet have poor reading skills ND-Dem Mar 2015 #21

Way. uppityperson Mar 2015 #24

Not really kcr Mar 2015 #43

Then STOP saying Bush answer Cheney are guilty of war crimes!!!!! msanthrope Mar 2015 #34

No, it doesn't work like that Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #38

Yes.....that is how it works. I get to say Bush is a war criminal, Assange is a rapist, msanthrope Mar 2015 #39

Rape is an actual criminal act as much as what Bush did gollygee Mar 2015 #40

Nonsense Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #41

Those are still only allegations gollygee Mar 2015 #42

bush & cheney are public figures and former government officials. the person under discussion ND-Dem Mar 2015 #44

No...these are court cases in the news. I get to comment. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #48

and if you say this private citizen is guilty though he wasn't found to be guilty in court, I get to ND-Dem Mar 2015 #50

You really don't like it when I call out rapists, do you? First Assange, now this. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #51

really? we use to have a particular poster that had real issue with that, too. hm. nt seabeyond Mar 2015 #53

It should ring a Bell. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #63

a problem with smear tactics? i'd think all *real* democrats would have a problem with them. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #64

or rape apologists. i guess it depends what you take/ignore from the article. seabeyond Mar 2015 #65

I don't have an opinion about the article, because I don't know anything about it but the ND-Dem Mar 2015 #67

What? Seriously? Show us one "rape apologist" in this thread. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #69

"Innocent people should not be imprisoned" = "rape apology" lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #79

Judicial process is such a pain in the butt, amiright? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #66

Manny, you don't seem to like it when I call out rapists, either, given msanthrope Mar 2015 #70

He's confessed? nt MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #71

There's no dispute as to the fact that he continued after she said no. msanthrope Mar 2015 #73

He said he did that? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #74

He gave a police interview, Manny..... msanthrope Mar 2015 #75

it truly amazes me how men will go out of their way to ignore, dismiss, or excuse rape. BUT... seabeyond Mar 2015 #76

You know sea.....take a look at what this guy had to say. See what Assange had to say. msanthrope Mar 2015 #88

you are right on. the words are out there. THEIR words are out there. they are literally stating seabeyond Mar 2015 #90

Nobody is ignoring, dismissing, or excusing anything. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #96

yes, they are and you are a part of it. always a participant. seabeyond Mar 2015 #97

Let me try this again. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #98

I thought that you'd changed the subject to Assange MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #92

The judge made a decision. She's incorrect. And why would you msanthrope Mar 2015 #100

From his own one_voice Mar 2015 #91

"Something wrong" is different than "violating the law" MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #93

Well lets see... one_voice Mar 2015 #94

+1000 smirkymonkey Mar 2015 #85

Like George Zimmermann and Darren Wilson? nt kelly1mm Mar 2015 #101

that both killed someone was never in doubt and was accepted as fact in court. in fact there were ND-Dem Mar 2015 #102

Darren Wilson never went to trial and George Zimmernann was found not guilty. It is not a crime kelly1mm Mar 2015 #103

I have no problem with anyone calling zimmerman a killer, since that's what he is and ND-Dem Mar 2015 #107

Should I check to see if you corrected anyone/everyone here when they called Zimmermann kelly1mm Mar 2015 #108

Has a judge ever thrown the allegations against Bush & Co out of court? n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #78

and the mens group cometh, to tell us how beating a girl, and raping a girl, is excused cause seabeyond Mar 2015 #80

Am I interrupting an inquisition? n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #81

how can you read what msanthrope just posted, and address it in this manner? how... seabeyond Mar 2015 #82

The judge threw the case out of court. Unlike us, she had access to all the evidence available. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #83

ya... the girl is unimportant. that is how you can do this. gotcha. i couldnt do that for anything seabeyond Mar 2015 #84

"She had access the to all the evidence available." Buzzer on the play..... msanthrope Mar 2015 #99

And we do? lumberjack_jeff Mar 2015 #104

No. ....but we have enough evidence of probable cause. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #106

He was cleared by a judge who threw out the case, according to the opening statements of the article LisaL Mar 2015 #25

That film is so tame it's ridiculous Blue_Adept Mar 2015 #72

I'm struggling with the concept of "probable cause" in a rape case. Starry Messenger Mar 2015 #13

At the hearing, the judge has decide if there is enough evidence a crime was committed. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2015 #19

The probable cause hearing is a more likely than not hearing. former9thward Mar 2015 #62

BDSM can be tricky Revanchist Mar 2015 #28

That's what it sounds like. LisaL Mar 2015 #32

Unless they removed the law from the books Revanchist Mar 2015 #36

But BDSM does not alwsys equate to sex brooklynite Mar 2015 #37

According to the testimony, there was sex. LisaL Mar 2015 #46

But if they were "role playing" that becomes more complicated. LisaL Mar 2015 #45

But she withdrew consent when she said no. Revanchist Mar 2015 #47

+1000 smirkymonkey Mar 2015 #49

Tell it to the judge. The case was thrown out. LisaL Mar 2015 #56

Regardless of this ruling, I hope the prosecutors decide to move forward on charges. Revanchist Mar 2015 #57

Lets say they do. Even if he is indicted, he could request the trial by a judge instead of a jury. LisaL Mar 2015 #59

I think it would depend on what the indictment is Revanchist Mar 2015 #61

Some doctor he'll be...yuk... marions ghost Mar 2015 #35

It basically mercuryblues Mar 2015 #52

yup. nt seabeyond Mar 2015 #54

"he tied her hands with a rubber band" Scootaloo Mar 2015 #58

I predict Mr. Hossain will be sitting before a judge again long before he takes his Medical boards alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #55

When I first replied in this thread... NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #60

Rape's a hard fucking crime to prosecute. TDale313 Mar 2015 #86

I don't disagree with anything you wrote... NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #95

"No, stop" LWolf Mar 2015 #87

Never heard of a code word? sendero Mar 2015 #89