Bring me my machine gun
#76
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Your question is absurd. It presupposes I have some privileged access to the judge's mind. Like so much that you post here, it is designed merely to deceive.
However, it is safe to assume that the judge did not have access to knowledge of Zuma's, and the victim's, subsequent history.
However, it is safe to assume that the judge did not have access to knowledge of Zuma's, and the victim's, subsequent history.
#77
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,424
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Actually guys, If I may?
This is Puerile and developed into who can pee highest.
Hypothetical,SA's way of choosing who will lead SA is down to a name on a Ballot paper as opposed to a party.
Pabs is highly unlikely to vote for the Jacob .
The question is wether Stan or Jugs will?
This is Puerile and developed into who can pee highest.
Hypothetical,SA's way of choosing who will lead SA is down to a name on a Ballot paper as opposed to a party.
Pabs is highly unlikely to vote for the Jacob .
The question is wether Stan or Jugs will?
#78
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Definitely not, whilst he was acquittted of the rape charge, he certainly demonstrated poor judgement and lack of morals during and after the incident. The corruption charges around the arms deal still need to be resolved (not likely to happen before the next election if ever). The way he got the leadership position, and some of his backers, are somewhat distasteful. Overall it says a lot about the ANC that they chose this man as their leader (scary thought is that he may turn out better than Mbeki).
#79
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,881
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Actually guys, If I may?
This is Puerile and developed into who can pee highest.
Hypothetical,SA's way of choosing who will lead SA is down to a name on a Ballot paper as opposed to a party.
Pabs is highly unlikely to vote for the Jacob .
The question is wether Stan or Jugs will?
This is Puerile and developed into who can pee highest.
Hypothetical,SA's way of choosing who will lead SA is down to a name on a Ballot paper as opposed to a party.
Pabs is highly unlikely to vote for the Jacob .
The question is wether Stan or Jugs will?
My contention is that the bar to what constitutes admissible evidence is necessarily more restrictive in a court case, especially in criminal cases. This is enshrined in the usual requirement that guilt must be proven, rather than innocence proven.
But I contend that it is not reasonable, or appropriate, to apply such restrictions outside the courtroom. Nor, in practice, is this how people live their lives, or form their judgements. To suggest that the matter is closed just because Zuma was acquitted is to make a mockery of human society by reducing it to the status of a court room.
You can see the wider implications of this increasingly common confusion all around you, especially in Europe and the USA, where so called experts constantly try to persuade the rest of us that this or that certificate or diploma or other imprimatur should require us to suspend our normal faculties of human judgement.
Last edited by Pablo; Oct 8th 2008 at 8:58 am.
#80
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,424
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Pablo,everyone is then on the same page.
I think any rational logical person knows that Non-consensual S*x took place,
and that Shaiks Trial proved that Zuma is Guilty at the very least of not declaring Parliamentary Priviledge iro gifts recieved.
Which is also a dismissable offence
Personally,I think the prosecution failed in both instances, a weak case that Kemp kemp drove a truck through and not prosecuting Zuma with Shaik.
I also think that Nicholson let the moment go to his head and went too far in his comments.
I think any rational logical person knows that Non-consensual S*x took place,
and that Shaiks Trial proved that Zuma is Guilty at the very least of not declaring Parliamentary Priviledge iro gifts recieved.
Which is also a dismissable offence
Personally,I think the prosecution failed in both instances, a weak case that Kemp kemp drove a truck through and not prosecuting Zuma with Shaik.
I also think that Nicholson let the moment go to his head and went too far in his comments.
#81
Re: Bring me my machine gun
What evidence was barred in this case?
But I contend that it is not reasonable, or appropriate, to apply such restrictions outside the courtroom. Nor, in practice, is this how people live their lives, or form their judgements. To suggest that the matter is closed just because Zuma was acquitted is to make a mockery of human society by reducing it to the status of a court room.
#82
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Pablo,everyone is then on the same page.
I think any rational logical person knows that Non-consensual S*x took place,
and that Shaiks Trial proved that Zuma is Guilty at the very least of not declaring Parliamentary Priviledge iro gifts recieved.
Which is also a dismissable offence
Personally,I think the prosecution failed in both instances, a weak case that Kemp kemp drove a truck through and not prosecuting Zuma with Shaik.
I also think that Nicholson let the moment go to his head and went too far in his comments.
I think any rational logical person knows that Non-consensual S*x took place,
and that Shaiks Trial proved that Zuma is Guilty at the very least of not declaring Parliamentary Priviledge iro gifts recieved.
Which is also a dismissable offence
Personally,I think the prosecution failed in both instances, a weak case that Kemp kemp drove a truck through and not prosecuting Zuma with Shaik.
I also think that Nicholson let the moment go to his head and went too far in his comments.
Shaiks trial proved nothing about Zuma (unfortunately).
#83
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,424
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Judge Van der Merwe found it was consensual, is he irrational or illogical?
Shaiks trial proved nothing about Zuma (unfortunately).
If Memory serves(and I'm not going to read through the whole trial again)
When Zuma was asked by Prosecution wether she had said no, his reply was that she may have but that it was the way of a Zulu man to ignore such things at that time. Kindly allow me some licence in the words but the inference was clear. wether she said no had no meaning to Zuma.
The Ruling Judge in summation found that the Financial relationship between Zuma and Shaik was corrupt.
The NPA had decided to trial separately.
I repeat the prosecution of both cases left much to be desired.
Shaiks trial proved nothing about Zuma (unfortunately).
If Memory serves(and I'm not going to read through the whole trial again)
When Zuma was asked by Prosecution wether she had said no, his reply was that she may have but that it was the way of a Zulu man to ignore such things at that time. Kindly allow me some licence in the words but the inference was clear. wether she said no had no meaning to Zuma.
The Ruling Judge in summation found that the Financial relationship between Zuma and Shaik was corrupt.
The NPA had decided to trial separately.
I repeat the prosecution of both cases left much to be desired.
#84
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,881
Re: Bring me my machine gun
you've moved the goalposts Pabs, the question was is he or isn't he a rapist?
More restrictive than what? A kangaroo court? Trial by media?
What evidence was barred in this case?
So again Pabs I ask you, what do you know that the judge didn't? (4th time, still waiting for an answer)
So why bother with courts Pabs? Perhaps we should form lynch mobs, then we'll have justice a la Pabs.
More restrictive than what? A kangaroo court? Trial by media?
What evidence was barred in this case?
So again Pabs I ask you, what do you know that the judge didn't? (4th time, still waiting for an answer)
So why bother with courts Pabs? Perhaps we should form lynch mobs, then we'll have justice a la Pabs.
#85
Re: Bring me my machine gun
For the record Stan, when a woman is made to have sex against her will, it is then called rape, even if she submitted. Still was not something she wanted but must have felt pressured to do. First world standards you know.
#86
Re: Bring me my machine gun
If Memory serves(and I'm not going to read through the whole trial again) When Zuma was asked by Prosecution wether she had said no, his reply was that she may have but that it was the way of a Zulu man to ignore such things at that time. Kindly allow me some licence in the words but the inference was clear. wether she said no had no meaning to Zuma.
From the complainant's testimony
"During the intercourse the complainant did not tell the accused to stop. The reason being that she could not talk, she could not move and she could not do anything"
"The complainant further conceded that the fact that she had not said anything to the accused during the intercourse to convey her refusal to him, would be an issue in the matter."
"In cross-examination the complainant was asked the following question: "You gave no indication during this process to your rapist that you are objecting to what is going on. Is that right?" The answer is: "That is correct yes." "
And from the defendant's testimony:
"He said that he hesitated a bit which caused the complainant to say that he could not leave her in that situation"
And finally the judges statement:
" it appears to be very odd that from the time the complainant assisted in rolling onto her back and having her clothes removed, she did not utter a single “no” "
I trust that this is sufficient evidence that she did not say no, not that that necessarily means that it was consensual. However, I have also already shown where the judge found that it was consensual.
#87
Re: Bring me my machine gun
Yes, but Zuma has yet to give a defence. If this case was so easy, it would have been done and dusted years ago.
Last edited by Stanley10; Oct 10th 2008 at 1:19 am.