Man acquitted of rape, because woman was wearing "skinny jeans"

[RadiomanATL]

You're not guilty of rape: Those skinny jeans were too tight to remove by yourself, jury rules | Mail Online

A man was acquitted of rape today after a jury agreed his victim could not have been sexually assaulted while wearing skinny jeans.

Nicholas Gonzales, 23, told a court in Australia that sex with the 24-year-old woman was consensual, despite her claim he had ripped off her size six skinny jeans before the attack.

The Sydney jury sent a note to the judge during the trial asking for more information about 'how exactly Nick took off her jeans'.

The note from a jury member added: 'I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration.'

​

 

[manifold]

Seems rather spurious to me.

Like a would be rapist couldn't just threaten to beat the shit out of his victim if she doesn't let him pull off her pants.

I guess if the woman opts to be raped, rather than beaten and raped, she consented.

 

[KissMy]

Seems rather spurious to me.

Like a would be rapist couldn't just threaten to beat the shit out of his victim if she doesn't let him pull off her pants.

I guess if the woman opts to be raped, rather than beaten and raped, she consented.

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted. She got drunk, went home with the guy & then up to his bedroom. Now she sobers up & claims rape. I need a little more proof than a drunk persons word.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Can't a woman run faster with her dress up than a man can with his pants down?

 

[manifold]

Seems rather spurious to me.

Like a would be rapist couldn't just threaten to beat the shit out of his victim if she doesn't let him pull off her pants.

I guess if the woman opts to be raped, rather than beaten and raped, she consented.

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted. She got drunk, went home with the guy & then up to his bedroom. Now she sobers up & claims rape. I need a little more proof than a drunk persons word.

So saying no isn't enough for it to be rape huh? She has to take a beating too.

I'm not aware of that particular statute, can you provide a link please?

 

[editec]

You're not guilty of rape: Those skinny jeans were too tight to remove by yourself, jury rules | Mail Online

A man was acquitted of rape today after a jury agreed his victim could not have been sexually assaulted while wearing skinny jeans.

Nicholas Gonzales, 23, told a court in Australia that sex with the 24-year-old woman was consensual, despite her claim he had ripped off her size six skinny jeans before the attack.

The Sydney jury sent a note to the judge during the trial asking for more information about 'how exactly Nick took off her jeans'.

The note from a jury member added: 'I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration.'

Assuming we're getting the entire story (which I doubt) this is outragous.

 

[editec]

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted.

You have got to be kidding, right?

 

[inquisitive]

I am a size 6 and own a pair of skinny jeans. They are not as tight as they look and the waist is average for most jeans, except the leg part is a little snugger. It does not take me any more effort to take my skinny jeans off than it takes me to take regular jeans off. The judge should have used another argument!

 

[Truthmatters]

She could have taken her jeans off willingingly and it still be rape.

If she did not consent to sex and he had sex with her anyway its rape.

this is a really stupid Jury

 

[California Girl]

Seems rather spurious to me.

Like a would be rapist couldn't just threaten to beat the shit out of his victim if she doesn't let him pull off her pants.

I guess if the woman opts to be raped, rather than beaten and raped, she consented.

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted. She got drunk, went home with the guy & then up to his bedroom. Now she sobers up & claims rape. I need a little more proof than a drunk persons word.

I seriously hope you are kidding about the bruises.

The article says nothing about her being drunk.

Seriously, Kiss, your response is nothing short of moronic.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I'm hoping that there was other evidence, not mentioned in the article, that led the jury to conclude that it was consensual sex.

 

[dilloduck]

Bottom line---if the woman tells the jury that she did not consent, the guy goes to prison ?

 

[KissMy]

Seems rather spurious to me.

Like a would be rapist couldn't just threaten to beat the shit out of his victim if she doesn't let him pull off her pants.

I guess if the woman opts to be raped, rather than beaten and raped, she consented.

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted. She got drunk, went home with the guy & then up to his bedroom. Now she sobers up & claims rape. I need a little more proof than a drunk persons word.

I seriously hope you are kidding about the bruises.

The article says nothing about her being drunk.

Seriously, Kiss, your response is nothing short of moronic.

Mr Gonzales, the Sydney court was told, had met his victim for drinks in April 2008 before going to his house to listen to music.

The woman said they had gone upstairs to his room so he could play his drums - but he had pushed her onto the bed and lay on top of her.

'I struggled to try to get up for a while and then he undid my jeans and he pulled them off,' she said, before adding that she was then raped.

This does not sound like the actions of a sober rational woman of sound mind. If I were on a jury & this floozy told me she was raped & I should vote to throw this guy in prison, I would feel this alone is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No scratches or bruises on the guy, no torn clothing or missing buttons, no bruises on her, what about a rape test kit, vaginal swab. WTF I know this is not PC, but this does not pass the sniff test.

 

[manifold]

I'm hoping that there was other evidence, not mentioned in the article, that led the jury to conclude that it was consensual sex.

I'm willing to accept there may not have been enough evidence to conclude it was NOT consensual, but the tight jeans defense is just plain retarded.

 

[manifold]

What's next? The big cock/tight pussy defense?

Yo yo yo, your honor check this out. I gotta huge cock and her pussy was so damn tight that there is no way I coulda fucked her without her cooperation (and patience)!

 

[007]

I don't know... it's not a good day in court if a guy can be convicted of something without as much as a shred of evidence. She might have said "you play drums like shit" and pissed him off and they had an argument, so she decided I'll show him and accused him of rape. I just don't like the idea that a guy can be convicted of rape simply because some women said so. I think there had better be some evidence.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I am a size 6 and own a pair of skinny jeans. They are not as tight as they look and the waist is average for most jeans, except the leg part is a little snugger. It does not take me any more effort to take my skinny jeans off than it takes me to take regular jeans off. The judge should have used another argument!

I am afraid we'll need some step-by-step pics inquisitive. IF your a she, that is

 

[CMike]

There needs to be evidence that she was actually raped, other than her word.

 

[hjmick]

Australia... Sheesh!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seems rather spurious to me.

Like a would be rapist couldn't just threaten to beat the shit out of his victim if she doesn't let him pull off her pants.

I guess if the woman opts to be raped, rather than beaten and raped, she consented.

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted. She got drunk, went home with the guy & then up to his bedroom. Now she sobers up & claims rape. I need a little more proof than a drunk persons word.

So saying no isn't enough for it to be rape huh? She has to take a beating too.

I'm not aware of that particular statute, can you provide a link please?

That is NOT what was said RETARD.