3 ms·
Poking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we ca
by tpetry 7y ago
Poking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we cant really guess who is wrong or right.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoI agree. More information is needed before any judgement could be made one way or the other.
- himinlomax 7y agoWhatever happened with that condom, that definitely falls under "reasonable doubt." Considering what happened to Assange after that, the first thing that comes to mind is the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
- lawtalkinghuman 7y agoWhether that amounts to reasonable doubt is something that could be determined by a jury in a court of law following rules of evidence and procedure, if Assange went to trial.
- bouncycastle 7y agoThe charges were dropped.
- DagAgren 7y agoBecause he successfully evaded capture for long enough that the case was no longer viable.
- himinlomax 7y agoThey could have interviewed him in the embassy but declined to do so.
- DagAgren 7y agoIt really isn’t their responsibility to accommodate a fugitive, is it.
- silverreads 7y agoIt is absolutely the responsibility of the state to act fairly to all.
- DagAgren 7y agoWhich means not making special exceptions for some people, like Assange here.
- himinlomax 7y agoAre you denying that his claims of being persecuted by the US government were unfounded, given that they have been proven right?
- DagAgren 7y agoI deny that this is a valid reason to flee prosecution in Sweden.
- himinlomax 7y agoDoes that apply to all proven victims of state persecution or just Assange?