**bleep** victim could have 'closed her legs', Lawyer tells Court

[grandmoon]

A young Wellington woman raped by a bouncer in an alleyway could have "closed her legs" if she didn't want sex, the man's lawyer told a jury.

Keith Jefferies was addressing the Wellington District Court in defence of George Jason Pule, who was found guilty of **bleep** the drunk 20-year-old after telling her he could help get her into a club to see her friends.

His comments were condemned after the verdict as "disgusting" and "disrespectful" by Wellington **bleep** Crisis manager Natalie Gousmett.

They come in the wake of the Roast Busters scandal, in which a group of young Auckland men boasted online of having sex with drunken girls as young as 13.

Advertisement

Jefferies told the jury that the complainant and Pule, 34, a bouncer at The Establishment bar, had walked down Courtenay Place holding hands before having consensual sex in the early hours of October 22, 2011.

He claimed the woman made a false complaint to police six days later because she regretted the sex. There was no struggle or any threats, nor was there violence, Jefferies said in his closing arguments yesterday.

"All she would have had to do was to close her legs . . . it's as simple as that," he told the jury. "Why didn't she do that? . . . The reason she didn't do that was because the sex was consensual, as easy as that."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/**bleep**-victim-could-have-closed-her-legs-lawyer-tells-court-20131114-...

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@cspotrunning wrote:

rather than look at the facts lets just hate and blame men -

where is the personal responsibilty?

i have already said some men are pigs, should women ignore that?

are women so stupid to not realise what can happen to them?

---

No one is blaming 'men' we are blaming r apists. 

Whether women should take steps to protect themselves from **bleep** has nothing whattsoever to do with the crime itself.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

a lot of men are pigs and a lot of women are fools.

Being foolish is not a crime,   **bleep** a fool is, 

If you have a big win at the races, go into a pub to celebrate, shout for the whole bar then get blind drunk and pass out on the floor, does that make the gury who steals your wallet while you are unconscious less guilty of theft? "Please, Your Honour, he was drunk and flashing his money around - almost begging to be robbed."

---

No, but the celebrator could have taken steps to minimize his risk. he shouldn't have to (well actually he does, because I think that being drunk in a public place is illegal, as is the supply of alcohol to an intoxicated person) regardless, it is a known factor, that being intoxicated reduces your levels of awareness and response to stimuli and potentially reduces your ability to protect yourself should the need arise.

Just because the other guy is still guilty, doesn't really help the victim, especially when there are known measures he could have taken to minimize such a risk.

[freakiness]

---

@my*mum wrote:

just as there are no obvious traits or locations etc to a lot of murderers, burglers etc.

So do you lock your house am3?

Do you lock your car when you park it somewhere?

Do you get a solicitor to help you with the sale/purchase of a house?

Do you do things to mimimize the risk of fire?

according to your beliefs, there is no need to due to the randomness of risk.

yeah, in general, crime is random, but you can certainly do things to minimize your risk of being a victim. It may not eliminate the risk, but it at least gives you a chance. No one should have to, but a responsible person should. Unfortunately, it is not illegal to be stupid.

---

Are you suggesting that women and girls should wear locks certified by solicitors and fire inspectors to prevent **bleep**?

Should they do stay home under lock and key with no men present also?

Perhaps you could invent a box to lock females in to keep them safe from rapists.

**bleep** should never be blamed on the victim, regardless of whether she was raped at home, out partying or anywhere else.

To imply that it's the woman's fault is to imply that men have no control. That's insulting most men.

[alexander*beetle]

---

i have already said some men are pigs, should women ignore that?

are women so stupid to not realise what can happen to them?

Wow, just wow. So just how are these women who are so stupid supposed to know which men are pigs and which ones are not. Sadly, these "men who are pigs" don't have a neon sign on their forehead to warn them. So I guess in that case, every man should be looked upon as one who might potentailly assault them. Yep, that makes sense.

---

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@cspotrunning wrote:

here we go, the no accountable for the stupid things i do crowd.

how i think?

i have watched mtv, perhaps you should - it sends a loud message that women are simply there for mens pleasure.

you don't think that guys dont think from between there legs?

perhaps women need to start thinking for themselves?

and not put themselves into positions were they can be harmed.

a lot of men are pigs and a lot of women are fools.

---

It's the old damned wh*res and Gods police argument, isn't it - poor,  helpless, men, slaves to their testosterone and driven to sexual excesses by the lascivious behaviour of their womenfolk

Women do not have a responsibility to protect men from their 'baser instincts' Men have a responsibility to curb those instincts. .

The advisability of  taking sensible steps to  avoid being a victim of crime  - any crime - is a totally separate issue.

---

Very true,

However we know that not all men do, and knowing this does not help a woman who becomes a victim of such a crime. However, a woman can do some things to minimize her risk of exposure to the risk.

No, she shouldn't have to, I agree with that. But it does seem to be the responsible thing to do, and certainly the less pervasive thing to do.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

OK Am, you and I have different views. I believe that a responsible person should take steps to minimize the risk of harm to themselves. You don't. That's fine, but I do believe that you are being deliberately obtuse to my point.

They are two totally separate issues.

If some little punk walks into your house, trashes your loungeroom and steals your laptop and stereo equipment, can he claim mitigating circumstances because you forgot to lock the door when you went out?

---

slightly different, the punk can't, by my insurance company can and does. They tell me I have to have certain security measures in place to protect myself from this fella (and others with the same intention), if I don't they won't insure me and if I don't engage them, they won't pay out on the claim.

I don't think anyone is saying anyone has the right to **bleep** anyone under any circumstances or excusing anybody from doing so, but I think they are saying that there are known risk factors and you can employ measures to minimize your exposure (no pun intended) to risk.

prevention is better than cure. and I am not too sure that their really is a cure for the ramifications of **bleep** for the victim, so to me at least, it makes sense to do whatever I can to minimize the risk of it occurring.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@my*mum wrote:

just as there are no obvious traits or locations etc to a lot of murderers, burglers etc.

So do you lock your house am3?

Do you lock your car when you park it somewhere?

Do you get a solicitor to help you with the sale/purchase of a house?

Do you do things to mimimize the risk of fire?

according to your beliefs, there is no need to due to the randomness of risk.

yeah, in general, crime is random, but you can certainly do things to minimize your risk of being a victim. It may not eliminate the risk, but it at least gives you a chance. No one should have to, but a responsible person should. Unfortunately, it is not illegal to be stupid.

---

Are you suggesting that women and girls should wear locks certified by solicitors and fire inspectors to prevent **bleep**?

Should they do stay home under lock and key with no men present also?

Perhaps you could invent a box to lock females in to keep them safe from rapists.

**bleep** should never be blamed on the victim, regardless of whether she was raped at home, out partying or anywhere else.

To imply that it's the woman's fault is to imply that men have no control. That's insulting most men.

---

No, that is not what I am suggesting at all. nowhere have I said or implied that it is the victim's fault (apparently men can be raped too)

I was pointing out that there are things a person can do to minimize the risk of harm to themselves. just bouncing off post 16.

and I think that lock was already invented, isn't that what a chastity belt does?

[freakiness]

Teach boys that **bleep** is never ok. 

Teach boys that no means no.

DO not teach boys to blame girls for their inadequacies.

[cspotrunning]

make you feel more masculine to bash a man?

i would be the first to come to a womans aid. i find it amazing that you dont want women to protect themselves?

just put on anything you want, act however you want, take whatever you want - afterall i can defend myself with big words.

protecting yourself is not putting yourself in harms way in the first place.

[freakiness]

---

@cspotrunning wrote:

make you feel more masculine to bash a man?

i would be the first to come to a womans aid. i find it amazing that you dont want women to protect themselves?

just put on anything you want, act however you want, take whatever you want - afterall i can defend myself with big words.

protecting yourself is not putting yourself in harms way in the first place.

---

Who bashed a man?

It's more a man bash to claim they can't control themselves around girls that are not protected.

People that get raped don't actually present theselves to the rapist.