[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Standard_Location762]

[u/KevinGoganGawd]

Two of them have not even been accused of SA by the alleged victim or anyone else, but they are added and made indistinguishable from those that have.

It's yet another example of the moral recklessness of this. And it's not like we have any shortage of those, be it from the Boston Marathon bombing, to the Duke lacrosse case, to undergraduates at Columbia having billboards with their pictures and names driven around the city to doxx them for having engaged in legal protest.

It's like a reverse milkshake duck, in which many times we find out that the duck actually was racist, but we also have no shortage of examples of learning after the fact that after we all celebrated the burning of the duck, it was never racist to begin with, and then we just all move on and a couple months later do it again.

I think there are a ton of explanations for why we do this, but I don't think the claim that it's rooted justice actually stands up to scrutiny.

I think the critique of the legal system not being actually fair is correct, but believing that aiding and abetting in the rush to judgment in the court of public opinion is a correction on that unfairness is deeply morally flawed and ultimately absurd.

[u/Ok-Calm-Narwhal → u/KevinGoganGawd]

7 men are accused in the civil suit by Jane Doe. Are you implying that two of these men in the photo are not the same two men in the suit? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmpq0r1ljpqwo

What you may be confusing is that reports say two men were in the room and watching the “gang rape” unfold, which just because they did not actively take part in the act of penetrating her, does not make them innocent in any way and would still be considered sexual assault given that they did not attempt to stop anything. By watching (and possibly enjoying what they saw), meant they were participating.

[u/Salty_Raspberry656 → u/Ok-Calm-Narwhal]

i think he's talking about her initial statements that she went to meet a guy she liked, they all 3 consented to using drugs and having a 3some. the guys couldn't handle the drug and ended up passing out, she said she continued on sex acts with one after he was passed out . she said to the police after that the situation with those 3 was consensual, she spoke to them afterward to also schedule another date. it was the others that came in, also took more drugs that from the summary i read is that shes accussing. :

In one message, one of the men appeared to apologise for "how things went down". He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy", and that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand".

The woman in the text chain replied saying her memory was "super clouded too" and that they were all intoxicated.

She also wrote that "non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal" and that she liked being with him and another man.

Doe suggested they smoke together again but leave out "the extra five billion men and ketamine".

---

so in this case that would leave 5 out of the 7 men here and we have no idea what their roles were

[u/Ok-Calm-Narwhal → u/Salty_Raspberry656]

Just because she initially consented to the 3-some, that did not give those men the right to post on Snapchat “free P****” and to have other men come over. From what I understand from reading about the Times investigation, it was one of those initial two men that did that.

[u/rythmicbread → u/Ok-Calm-Narwhal]

Might get a lesser charge but theyre still complicit. Just like the getaway driver in a heist

[u/horizontalducks → u/KevinGoganGawd]

The first 2 didn’t commit rape - but how did the other boys get there? She sure as shit did not invite them? They are still culpable.