18 y/o """""""raped""""""" by three men

I've never seen this much whiteknighting before. Am I the only one not defending this whore? Have you even read the fucking appeal?

lovdata.no/dokument/LBSTR/avgjorelse/lb-2015-85818?q=LB-2015-85818

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Am I the only one not defending this whore?

Absolutely not, but a lot of people judge based on emotions.

I was talking to some people yesterday where they were like "yeah, I hope those guys will get some "street justice" now that everyone knows who they are."

I tried to tell them there probably is a reason as to why both a jury in the first court room and several of the judges in the third court room said that they cannot vote guilty in this case.

They almost jumped on me to tell me why I was worse than Hitler...

That girl looks like.. your average American porn girl. Just screams "IM A CUM DUMPSTER"

Mom has psychotic thousand cock stare

So she agreed to get three-wayed ... realized it was bad for her reputation AFTER the fact - then said "I was raped!"

Just like last week in Canada - some chick was about to get dumped by her brown boyfriend - probably realized it would really hurt her value - so she said the last night they had sex was "rape" even though it was her idea and she went along with it the whole time.


Beware the retroactive rape accusation -

>So she agreed to get three-wayed ... realized it was bad for her reputation AFTER the fact - then said "I was raped!"

This is what I believe happened.

The decision means that it is legal for me to lie about the strength of a drug to user, then proceed to rape his ass-pussy when he is out of his mind.

Here's the last thread.

What is this mystical language even. All I can gather is that 3 men were found innocent by a judge. Then a complaint happened and with it a new trial. They were found innocent again, but this time made to pay up reparations anyway.(?) Then a third trial decided the men are rapists now and threw them to prison. (?)

Did I get this bullshit about right? Yankees. Be happy for your double-jeopardy legislation. As such the goverment can't just re-do trials and votes until the result is something that they find acceptable.

I don't even know the specifics of this case. But the ahmeds have been found innocent twice already. What evidence changed, other than the victims testimony?

*Four wayed or gang banged.

Still, degenerate.

Hard to read google translate but if I'm getting this right a bunch of people got drunk high as balls, fucked eachother, and a girl decided she was raped? Seems consenting to sex when impaired still counts as consent in norway though.

She did seem pretty fucked up though, google translate. D is the victim.

"n addition to Ds explanation, the majority emphasized the taxi driver Gs explanation about how he perceived D when she was carried in and out of the taxi.

During the appeal hearing remembered G little from cab ride. Part of his statement to the police the day after was therefore read out and G confirmed what was read. In the police interrogation he explained that " the girl had absolutely no contact with life ." She could not do anything for yourself and one of the men had to help her. She was unable to walk, her eyes were open, but she just looked straight up. G claims to have heard her voice, but it was just babbling. She sat on the lap of one of the men during the trip, with your legs on either side of his lap and facing towards him. When the tour was over, bar the man the girl out in the same manner as she sat on his lap, in that he lifted her up slightly. It is presented a picture where this too is reconstructed. The picture shows that the victim will be borne by that she is being held under the thighs, with your body facing him as carrier and with head resting on his shoulder. "

I wouldn't be shocked if people would have gotten convicted over this over here in leafland.

Are you kidding? King Leaf would throw the book at them.

Like being honest I would not fuck a girl that was THAT out of it unless we were in some sort of relationship. Cab driver seems to be the only neutral party here and he says the girl was fucked out of her mind.

It's called an appeal, and exist in every Western country.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal

Who's the semen serpent?

>retroactive rape
This is not a bad thing

Yeah. I do understand the appeal process, it's used when there has been an issue in jurisdictional proceedings.

However. I though it couldn't be used to re-trial someone who had already been found innocent. A legal proceeding found this person innocent and you don't like that.
So then you complain and get a new trial. Instead of looking at the validity of the complaint or if any legislative errors have been made, you can just appeal for a complete re-trial? Willy nilly too, it seems.

That seems weird.

OK, what exactly were the drugs? Rohypnol or weed? Ive scanned your last thread, but ill get no answrs there...

This era sorely needs a Day of the Rope scenario. A flushing of the moral toilet.

Mdma

MDMA.
The urine and blood samples taken after the rape showed that she had taken enough to seriously poison her or even kill her.

So it's definitely rape. They spiked the drug, it was not a regular user dosage.

#JegTrorDeg

What kind of dose? I have a certain amount of experience with MDMA,,,,

It is not inconcievable that someone could be so far out their tree that they did not know wtf they were doing.

It is also well known for memory holes.

implying doctors know shit about mdma.

>none of them got convicted for rape
>still has to pay compansation to the girl

The victim in the case, D, born 0.0.1995 and live in Y. The current weekend she was traveling to Hemsedal with her mother, her sister and her friend.

The defendant and the victim met each other the first time the night of Sunday 23 March 2014.

Prior to this, the defendants testified that they were in ski hill on Friday evening. A testified that he took part alcohol that night and that he was still full when he woke up at 13 o'clock on Saturday. He further explained that he began drinking alcohol when he stood up and he became quite full.

It is clear that A, B and C later on Saturday was the afterparty with some acquaintances in a cottage called "Z". Then they went on the club "Bart." After they had been "Bart" and was going back to "Z" for the afterparty, met A and D.

Before that, D along with her mother, her sister and her friend visited Ds aunt and cousin. D testified that she was there drank three glasses of wine, a beer and a drink with rum and coke. By 2200/2230 o'clock she went and cousin down to the center. D took a beer on the way. After she had taken leave of my cousin who was at work, she came to talk with several different people, including E. She agreed with him that they would meet when he was going home so they could take a taxi together.

Around kl. 0030 she met A at a gas station. She perceived that A pretty drunk. Gradually also B and a third person as she does not know the name of. D got to talking with the men and they asked if she wanted to join the afterparty.

D, A, B and C then went along with several other people in a taxi to "Z". D sat on the lap of A. D testified that A started taking on her thigh and she then moved into the lap of B. A could under appeal hearing not remember D sat on his lap in the taxi, but explained in a police interview that a girl sat on his lap.

D and C greeted each other the first time when they went out of the taxi after they had arrived at the "Z".

The "Z" drank D first sip vodka and then she got a drink. She and B disagree whether it was he or someone else made the drink to her. D testified that B went into the kitchen, and that she saw that he poured rooms in the glass. Then he came out to her, pouring cola in glass. She drank some of the drink.

B testified that it was someone else who made the drink with rum and coke to D. D were present as they come with an unopened bottle of rum they used to drink. B was at that time in the living room.

D, A and B were on one occasion out on the porch and smoked hashish. D testified that A then felt up her, including on the ass, and she moved away from him. A can not remember that he should have done this.

Later went D, A and B into the basement of the cottage. They've had some different explanations of what further happened, but it is clear that all three took the drug MDMA.

D testified that B asked her if she would join into the basement to take drugs. She testified that B took out a bag of three capsules with powder inside and he let one of the capsules in her hand. He then gave one to A and the three took each capsule. A gave her a glass of water to take the capsule with. D asked what kind of material it was, and B replied that it was MDMA. She did not know what kind of fabric it was, but B said that it was absolutely fantastic, that it would make her happier and she had to try it. They asked her several times if she had taken the drug before, she replied that she had not.

>They spiked the drug, it was not a regular user dosage.
What if she just took too much? Loads of girls from 18-30 take MDMA at every music festival they go to

D has also testified that after she had ingested the capsule, another afterparty participant who asked if she had taken "0.5." In police interrogations 24. March 2014 explained that D B then replied that there were "0.5".

D testified that she saw on her mobile phone right after she had ingested the capsule with MDMA and the clock was then 01.30. The Court of Appeal finds her taking the drug immediately prior to this. D has also testified that she asked the others how long it would take before the drug began to work, and she spots the then smiled to each other. She was scared and wanted to stick his finger in his throat, but did not occasion since the others stayed with her chat. They went up the second floor of the cottage and B gave her drink her and told her to drink it up.

About the trip down to the basement where it was ingested MDMA has B testified that he said to A and D that he was going down to take drugs. A and D was then with down. B had brought six units with MDMA to Hemsedal, and he had three or four capsules again when they went down in the basement. He said they had taken the other three cookies earlier in the evening. Of the six units containing one or two units 50 mg, while the four others contained 100 or 125 mg. He is unsure of the amount of the three units he had left at the after party contained.

B has further explained that he held out his hand with the capsules and that A and D each took his capsule. B also asked one of the other partygoers, F, if he wanted, but he refused.

The appellate court perceives that B and D testified about intake of MDMA largely correspond in terms of the actual events. B denies, however, that he has given D more than a capsule containing a maximum of 125 mg of MDMA. If she has ingested more MDMA than this, she must have gotten it from others. B further disputes that he should have given D cocaine. High Court finds it necessary for the issue of guilt or for the assessment of the compensation order to decide whether D has received drugs from others. It is not a condition for either the prosecution or for redress that it is the defendant who has caused the victim's condition.

D testified that she 20 to 30 minutes after ingestion of MDMA was very sick. Then it began to tingle in your arms, legs and lips. She got a numb feeling and began to see double. She felt that people around her were talking very fast and light flew around the room. She sat in a chair and experienced seeing yourself from outside. She saw herself dancing and drinking, but do not know if she actually did it.

D has also testified that she sent a message to E, which she had agreed that she would accompany home. Printing from Ds phone shows that she at. 0156 sends a message to the E where she asked: "How Dikka cage."

D testified that she experienced extreme palpitations. She did not understand what was happening and were very afraid. She tried to send a message to his mother, but felt that phone "flew out of his hands." After a while, B approached her and said that they should go. She stood up and saw that the floor was rocking. When she walked down the stairs she fell and after it was all "black". Until she came to herself again at five o'clock in the morning she remembers only glimpses.

It is assumed in the west that intoxicated women can't make a rational decision. So isn't it normal for the dudes to get punished?

The assumption is very sexist, but oh well.

The first look she remembers is that she woke up in a bed. The pants and her thing is dragged down. She knew that a penis or fingers were inside her vagina. She turned around and saw that it was A that was behind her. The police have D testified that she saw people around them in different colors, white, red, blue and so on. During the appeal hearing, she explained that she did not know whether there were people around her, but she assumed that it was drugged that led to her so colors. D believes that this happened in the "Z".

A, B, C and D left "Z" together. They took a taxi from "Z" to the caravan.

D testified that she has a glimpse of her was carried out in a car, she had her face and she saw snow. Then she was carried again after the taxi had stopped.

A testified that he lifted D into the taxi. He does not remember that he has carried her over his shoulder. D sat on his lap during the taxi ride. He does not remember that he wore D out of the taxi, but does not rule out that he may have done it.

Taxi driver G, who ran the A, B, C and D from "Z" to the caravan, testified that one of the men was carrying a girl over her shoulder as wearing a potato sack. The submitted photos of a reconstruction which the police undertook with G day after the incident. The picture shows that the victim should have been carried over the shoulder with his face down, which correspond Ds explanation.

Based on printing the police examination of the defendant's phones as well as explanations of G and C the appellate court finds that taxi ride took place shortly after noon. 0234. According to G took the tour from "Z" to the caravan five to seven minutes. The High Court therefore finds that A, B, C and D were camping cabin from around kl. 0245.

It is not disputed that A, B and C had sexual intercourse with D in the caravan. All three have had vaginal intercourse with her and she has performed oral sex on B.

ty for the laugh

It is published three photos taken with B's cell phone. The pictures are taken in between the hours. 0346 until. 0349. The first picture shows that D has a penis in your mouth. She islands open. The next picture shows that D lies in a bed with B and another man. They are all three without clothes. D have their eyes closed. The third picture shows almost the same as the second picture, but this picture has D hand in front of your face.

D testified that she has a glimpse that she was lying in a bed between A and B. They were naked and she was naked beneath. The next thing she remembers is that they took turns having sex with her while the other watched. Both had vaginal intercourse with her. She felt up the entire body, including the genitals. She testified that they asked her to perform oral sex on them. She thinks she performed oral sex on B, but does not remember if she also performed it at A. She believes that A was there while she performed oral sex on B. She was scared and did not dare to do anything other than what they told her. To the police, she explained that she was kept physically.

D has further explained that she later got a "flashback" where she remembered that a man with a tattoo conducted vaginal intercourse with her while the others lay in bed. This proved to be C. Later wanted B to have her for himself and the others put it further into the caravan while B and D had sex.

D testified that she at no time wanted to have sexual intercourse with some of the defendants. She felt paralyzed and unable to resist. Based on the glimpses she had of what happened she feels not that she performed actively. In police interrogations, D testified that she said no, but she could not remember during the appeal hearing. She did not remember it was taken images.

No one's going to leak the nudes? Or show video the gangbang?

Civil cases and criminal court are different tho, while a ruling in one can affect the other it doesn't mean that they will go the same way

With thanks to Google Translate.

Apparently she went to a party and had drugged up sex with 3 guys about 3 to 4 years older than she was.

>she doesn't know about state-dependent consciousness

>she didn't think she would go to an adult party and be treated as an adult

maybe she should go with a wingperson or her mother to an adult party next time -- OR JUST AVOID DRUG USE

Goes to cottage in woods in the woods to take molly which makes you extremely horny

Pictures of her clearly showing she's engaging in sex and not passed out

Claims she didn't want to have sex lol!!!!


Obvious drug whore is obvious

...

Hey Murican.

We have google translate. You don't have to spam 56 posts saying the same.

You don't even get point for doing it.

...

just hide the post then

this is an english speaking board if you hadnt noticed and the OP posted a norwegian site

they're trying to to say she was "drugged down"
she took MDMA for fuck's sake
I've been on MDMA and it makes you feel like you could run a god damn marathon

What happened, Northway?
Where did it all go so wrong?

>I've been on MDMA and it makes you feel like you could run a god damn marathon
Could you really run a Marathon on MDMA?

>women exist that aren't cum dumpsters

I feel like I need to start getting a consent form or something signed before I ever even touch one of these sluts. Just to cover my ass.

Although if anything ever happened, I'm sure they could just say I "forged" it. Of course.

"feel" doesn't mean "can"

>OP posted norvegian site
Oh yes, I saw that. I don't speak Norwegian, that's kind of why I asked if the things I gathered from google translations were correct.

Because it seems like weird thing to happen. Multiple trials after the persons are deemed innocent.

>that circle in her pocket
What is that, dip?

Yes it certainly does, its all in your head, friend.

She looks like some adopted balkan untermensch or some turk.

you mean, like:

"I feel I am able to fly off this 28 story building?"

Her father appears to be brown.

I thinkt its a box of snus. Not sure what is called in english

I am a "lekdommer" in court cases, holy fuck am I glad i didnt get this one

Snus, dont know if that is what you call dip.

Didn't another Norway poster say something along the lines of "since the guys were found not guilty, they had to pay a fine"

What the fuck, Norway? Seriously

>Where did it all go so wrong?

Infection spread from Sweden

Three words
Common
Law
Marriage

are saying that, in effect, because they had sex with her, they have to "pay her for her time" and so forth?

They could also argue about state dependent consciousness and that they were not in the right state of mind when signing it, mind you that their "state of mind" is an entirely subjective opinion.

she reminds me of Marley Brinx

Justice has been served I guess. She consented to get drugged and fucked so it's not rape.

They wronged her, but not enough to go to jail for I assume.

I'm not a lawyer but in the US, appeals are for those convicted, not prosecuting. I understand there a few edge cases where that doesn't apply but for the most part I think that's how it is.

No, I mean that you should look up your laws. Anglosphere is the most cucked in terms of marriage and (((rape))).

ok thanks

>"oy vey, mr Judge, I lived with Robert for two years, now I need to maintain my lifestyle"
> Robert proceeds to pay
LOL