Navigation
User login
SPEAK OUT!!
Be heard on the issues that matter most to you!
Our Feeds...
Who's online
Online users
- Elizabeth
Safi's Innocent?
Well truthalwayzwins, you are challenging my misguidance! Wow, you must have one hell of a clairvoyant power to know what actually happened that evening. They should have called you and there wouldn't have even been a trial. However much you think you may know, there is reason to believe that Ms. Bowen may be innocent as well since there's the possibility that she was drugged at the bar.
Regardless of guilt or innocence, the point your trying to make is not only infuriating it's barbaric! I would like to be the first to welcome you to the year 2007, where women have rights and are allowed to go out by themselves! I know this is a big concept for you to imagine but try. Regardless of your small mindedness, it isn't an issue of guilt. It's about the freedom to be able to express in your own words what happened, to be able to call things what they are. If we begin to limit what we're allowed to say in a court room, the trend will continue to an uncontainable point. The possibility that of not allowing such words as "robbed", "child abuse" or "kidnapped" is not far fetched. These banned words inThe balance of justice in this case however, is definitely tilted. The judge did not allow the victim to express what had happened to her because of the implication it forms in the jurors minds. If this is case, then why is the accused allowed to express his words of what occurred. When he claimed that he had "consensual sex" is that not implying to the jurors the victim allowed this to happen to her or that she agreed? Shouldn't these words be banned as well? Let’s play fair.