**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]

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."

[the_great_she_elephant]

Unfortunately, it is not illegal to be stupid

 "Unfortunately"? Are you suggesting society would be better off if it were?

[cherry*135]

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

So do you lock your house am3? - Yes, that wouldn't stop lower anyone's risk of being assualted at a party, in the street, in a park though.

Do you lock your car when you park it somewhere? Yes, if I didn't do that it would not increase my risk of being assaulted.

Do you get a solicitor to help you with the sale/purchase of a house? Yes, if I didn't do that it would not increase my risk of being  assaulted.

Do you do things to mimimize the risk of fire? Yes, if I didn't do  that  it would not increase my risk of  assaulted.

Most of those examples affect property, I don't see how they are relevant to **bleep**/assault of a person.

[cherry*135]

So do you lock your house am3? - Yes, that wouldn't stop lower anyone's risk of being assualted at a party, in the street, in a park though.

Do you lock your car when you park it somewhere? Yes, if I didn't do that it would not increase my risk of being assaulted.

Do you get a solicitor to help you with the sale/purchase of a house? Yes, if I didn't do that it would not increase my risk of being  assaulted.

Do you do things to mimimize the risk of fire? Yes, if I didn't do  that  it would not increase my risk of  assaulted.

Most of those examples affect property, I don't see how they are relevant to **bleep**/assault of a person.

[cherry*135]

Unfortunately, it is not illegal to be stupid.

Who is stupid? A woman in her 30's, walking home, 500m approx from an evening out in a bar with friends, a route often walked by her?

Should we (women) stay home all the time with bars & locks on our windows and strong security external doors? That would lower the risk of assault. (unless one lived with a violent person).

[lionrose.7]

Some people would have women wearing burkas, not going out on their own not driving on there own,

Hold on the world already has people like that LOL

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@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.

[*crikey*mate*]

how come I can say **bleep** and **bleep** etc and others can't?

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.

Just as I immunize against known diseases or other health risks, just as I avail myself to preventative dental treatment and healthy life style choices, to me that is the responsible thing to do. If there is a known risk, I try to take steps to minimize my exposure to those risks. But that's just me.

bad things happen to good people, and whilst preventative action may not always acheive the desired results, it sure gives you a better chance and reduces your risk.

[cspotrunning]

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?

[*crikey*mate*]

oh, obviously I can't, thought it went through back there in post 17 though

*shrugs*

[the_great_she_elephant]

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?