Roosh to pursue legal action after woman creates false rape allegation

[anonymousyamParticipant 4605]

http://www.returnofkings.com/80628/s-jane-gari-publishes-fake-rape-allegation-against-me-prompting-legal-action
Warning an image of the horse woman appears in the article. Basically this woman created a false allegation against him. While in iceland she says roosh went and followed a girl named susan home. Once home roosh asked susan to touch his penis (im not joking) then proceeded to rape her. It was only a matter of time before a false claim was to appear after he said no woman accused him of rape.

Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

[Anonymous 25]

The fight back begins.

I knew this kind of legal action was going to start. This is good news for men.

In the next 5 years or so I suspect we will see serious legal action against some high profile man haters. Certainly in the next 10 years there will be women in jail for what is happening now to men.

[SpacemonkeyParticipant 1481]

Its about time too. I wonder how long it will be before some bright insurance dude comes up with insurance against false rape claims?

A false rape claim can loose a man his job, his house, his car, everything just in legal bills and even if he is found inocent. It is just a way for women to strip men of their stuff without even having to marry him.

Anti rape insurance would pay legal expences as well as paying out a lump sum to tide you over until you can find another job and pay for a counter claim against your accuser.

The courts seem unwilling to prosecute false rape acusers. If a woman stands up in court and gives evidence that some guy raped her and that claim is found to be false then she should be guilty of purgery at least.

“Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light.”

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Spacemonkey wrote:

The courts seem unwilling to prosecute false rape acusers. If a woman stands up in court and gives evidence that some guy raped her and that claim is found to be false then she should be guilty of purgery at least.

The original intent behind this is so that women were not afraid to come forward when they were raped due to fear of losing the case…like some girl gets raped by some rich kid, his parents get him off with some dream team of lawyers, and now she really was raped and getting charged for false accusations on top of that…

Unfortunately, as we are all aware, in practice this is way too easily abused by women, and the problem has only been compounded when the definition of rape has become so loose that morning after regret now constitutes rape no matter how willing she was the night before.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

Beer wrote:

The original intent behind this is so that women were not afraid to come forward when they were raped due to fear of losing the case…like some girl gets raped by some rich kid, his parents get him off with some dream team of lawyers, and now she really was raped and getting charged for false accusations on top of that…

If its really the case of a poor girl getting raped by a rich kid, ther’d definitely be clear boundaries for what’s tru and what’s false.

For example, a real rape victim will have a lot of supporters; feminist or not; and further investigation will make clear that whether the boy was capable of commiting the crime. (Eg: If he has a bad reputation, he’d definitely have a record, somewhere or the other).

But we see ‘real, good men’ getting accused and sentenced. There are no fair trails for them even when a ton of people say “he couldn’t have done that”. When a man is accused of rape, there is no ‘character investigation’.

It all comes down to the mishaps of a corrupt government and f~~~ed up feminist ideologies.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Anonymous 5]

“Horse Women” I herd about them once in Greek mythology.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Varun wrote:

If its really the case of a poor girl getting raped by a rich kid, ther’d definitely be clear boundaries for what’s tru and what’s false.

For example, a real rape victim will have a lot of supporters; feminist or not; and further investigation will make clear that whether the boy was capable of commiting the crime. (Eg: If he has a bad reputation, he’d definitely have a record, somewhere or the other).

You mean like every time some thug asshole gets shot by a cop while committing some act of violence, and everyone in the neighborhood is on the news talking about what a good kid he is?

Varun wrote:

But we see ‘real, good men’ getting accused and sentenced. There are no fair trails for them even when a ton of people say “he couldn’t have done that”. When a man is accused of rape, there is no ‘character investigation’.

There shouldn’t be a character investigation. Just because you are an asshole doesn’t mean you are a rapist, or just because a bunch of people think you are a good person doesn’t mean you can’t be a rapist or a murderer.

Varun wrote:

It all comes down to the mishaps of a corrupt government and f~~~ed up feminist ideologies.

But this is true. Here in America, the way our courts work is innocent until proven guilty, and all the feminists and white knights seem to forget this whenever a woman cries rape.

Here’s a novel idea…why don’t we teach people that when you get raped go to the hospital or police as quickly as you can after the rape to preserve as much physical evidence as possible and allow cops to investigate when the event is still fresh in people’s minds so they may actually find credible witnesses with matching stories. There will be DNA and fingerprints on her and her clothes which can document at a minimum there actually was physical contact. If she was forcibly raped there should be cuts/scrapes/bruises on her from the struggle. If she was drugged it can be very easily verified with blood/urine samples. You think that would be common sense…

The whole system is bulls~~~. When a woman wants to accuse a man of rape 6 months after he allegedly raped her or some dumb s~~~ while she literally has zero evidence…cops should just tell her to f~~~ off. Let it be known to women this is the treatment you get for failing to report it promptly. If someone breaks into your house and steals some s~~~, what do you do? You don’t touch anything and call the cops as soon as possible, right? What happens if you fix the window they broke to get in, clean everything up, then call the cops 6 months later? They’ll laugh at you.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

Beer wrote:

There shouldn’t be a character investigation. Just because you are an asshole doesn’t mean you are a rapist, or just because a bunch of people think you are a good person doesn’t mean you can’t be a rapist or a murderer.

A character investigation helps determine the possibility of a crime by a certain person. True, I agree that even bad guys can be good and vice-versa. If a thug do gets shot, everyone would not talk about his good character. They’d obviously be like “he deserved it”. They won’t ever think “did he realy did commit the crime?” Of course, people’s opinions hardly matter in the court of law and it’ll all come down to evidences and witnesses. This case is irrelevant to what I’m saying.

Let’s say there is a case of a high-grade college professor getting accused. People won’t be like “He deserved it” ’cause he would have a reputation. There would be testimonials from his students and staff etc. about what kind of a person he was. If they are like “No doubt he could have done this; he was of a bad character”, it will strengthen the accusations made against him and there’s be no effort to find out the viability of the crime.

Otherwise, if they are like “We’ve known him for the past 20 years; he’s of a very good character, respects everybody; if you ask me, I’m pretty sure its a false accusation”, the investigators should be more inclined to find out if he’s really committed the crime. But they don’t. They don’t check for viability of the crime.. or very few do it. The only difference is that thugs have it harder and quicker than the rest of the lot.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Varun wrote:

A character investigation helps determine the possibility of a crime by a certain person.

No it doesn’t, evidence determines that. Even if someone is a known drug dealer for example…you can’t just sentence him for selling drugs without any proof…character investigations = nothing.

Varun wrote:

True, I agree that even bad guys can be good and vice-versa. If a thug do gets shot, everyone would not talk about his good character.

Yeah right…most people say let’s wait for the evidence to come out, but the BLM type people get on TV talking about what a good kid he was, he had a promising future, he was going to college and all that s~~~…Michael Brown being just one example. He just got done robbing a store and was on video doing it, then assaulted an officer and tried to take his weapon, which was backed up by forensics, testimony, witnesses(the ones that didn’t change their story the next day when the case was on tv anyhow), and audio from the car, yet when he got shot people from the hood were talking about what a good kid he was. What if he raped someone instead? Low possibility he raped because his neighbors and his buddies say he was a good kid?

Varun wrote:

They’d obviously be like “he deserved it”.

Yeah…AFTER all the witnesses and evidence are taken into consideration and the investigation and trial completed. When cops blatantly f~~~ up they get charged…most people don’t just say “Eh the guy was a thug anyhow, he deserved it.”

Varun wrote:

They won’t ever think “did he realy did commit the crime?” Of course, people’s opinions hardly matter in the court of law and it’ll all come down to evidences and witnesses. This case is irrelevant to what I’m saying.

Nah…it is relevant. Any other example you try to apply the logic of a “character investigation” to in order to determine anything…its completely retarded. Why should we do it for rape?

Varun wrote:

Let’s say there is a case of a high-grade college professor getting accused. People won’t be like “He deserved it” ’cause he would have a reputation. There would be testimonials from his students and staff etc. about what kind of a person he was. If they are like “No doubt he could have done this; he was of a bad character”, it will strengthen the accusations made against him and there’s be no effort to find out the viability of the crime.

I think you should research sociopaths a bit. Sociopaths are often charismatic, likable people. That high-grade teacher with a good reputation could very well be the next Ted Bundy. People’s reputations or how they are perceived by their peers when it comes to whether or not they committed a specific crime are just completely irrelevant.

Either you have the evidence or you don’t…its that simple….just because someone is not liked, weird, a thug, or just a dickhead in general doesn’t make them guilty of anything. Making this hold any weight in the court of law is essentially like legalizing bullying via the courts. Just imagine a bunch of people don’t like John Doe so they all accuse him of some crime…even though there is no evidence because he didn’t do it, does it mean anything because a bunch of people tell the cops the guy is a dick and probably did it? Nope, and it shouldn’t.

Varun wrote:

Otherwise, if they are like “We’ve known him for the past 20 years; he’s of a very good character, respects everybody; if you ask me, I’m pretty sure its a false accusation”, the investigators should be more inclined to find out if he’s really committed the crime. But they don’t. They don’t check for viability of the crime.. or very few do it.

So how about priests that molested tons of kids. Many of them were well liked and well respected in their communities where they had been for years. Very low viability of crime there…yet we know how that scenario turned out over and over again lol.

Varun wrote:

The only difference is that thugs have it harder and quicker than the rest of the lot.

Because they are dumb enough to try to do something directly to a cop, which usually results in the immediate experience of some sort of physical pain or getting to experience what it feels like to be shot. If thugs willingly gave up and cooperated with police when they were caught rather than get violent with them they’d be treated the same as everyone else.

[NotMyProblemParticipant 965]

Not my monkey. Not my circus.

I think I’ll stick to my good old fleshlight and retire young instead.

Not my property... Not my problem

[Author]

Posts