The Nicholas Ninow Rape Case and Trial

tRoN said:
They should castrate this despicable excuse for a human being!

That trauma for the child will live with her forever and will affect future lives as well
Click to expand...

I agree with you. He has a lot of sympathizers thought. A lot of people on this forum want him spared. Your post isn't going to go down very well with them - protecting him at all cost.
 
hungrymamba said:
I agree with you. He has a lot of sympathizers thought. A lot of people on this forum want him spared. Your post isn't going to go down very well with them - protecting him at all cost.
Click to expand...
There is not a single person that wants him spared. Everyone is agreement he should be removed from society for everyone's safety. The concern is that innocent people might get hurt by political rhetoric created projecting one person's action onto a whole group.
 
Last edited:
skimread said:
There is not a single person that wants him spared. Everyone is agreement he should be removed from society for everyone's safety. The concern is that innocent people might get hurt by political rhetoric created projecting one person's action onto a whole group.
Click to expand...

You were opposed to NPA proceeding with the trial - you were happy with him pleading guilty and telling half-truths. You and your cohorts didn't want him held accountable. It was never about race, I couldn't care if he was white, black or green.

When I argued that the NPA needed to proceed with the trial - there was a lot of push back because he had 'pleaded' guilty, why should we accept the word of the rapist? Why his own terms? As has proven, not only is he a liar, he is also manipulative and a junkie.

If the NPA did not go through with the trial, he would only have gone down for the rape, not premeditated rape, defeating the ends of justice would not have been added, possession of drugs would not have been proven. You were just happy with preserving whiteness at the expense of justice.
 
hungrymamba said:
You were opposed to NPA proceeding with the trial - you were happy with him pleading guilty and telling half-truths. You and your cohorts didn't want him held accountable. It was never about race, I couldn't care if he was white, black or green.

When I argued that the NPA needed to proceed with the trial - there was a lot of push back because he had 'pleaded' guilty, why should we accept the word of the rapist? Why his own terms? As has proven, not only is he a liar, he is also manipulative and a junkie.

If the NPA did not go through with the trial, he would only have gone down for the rape, not premeditated rape, defeating the ends of justice would not have been added, possession of drugs would not have been proven. You were just happy with preserving whiteness at the expense of justice.
Click to expand...
Are you a lawyer? If you are guilty then you don't need a trial. It's common practice in trials around the world. If their is a discrepancy in evidence then ONLY call that evidence. The issue here is if it was premeditated. He lied because he is a psycho as she testified he followed her in. Then only bring evidence of the discrepancy. I feel she didn't have to testify as her victim statement from a year ago should have been used instead. If you call that defending him then it shows you don't care about the victim having to relive the ordeal
Your response is indicative of seeing the case in the public's interest instead of the victim. That is not justice or legal process but is called soap opera. The mob wanted to turn this into race, the mob was in court, NOT shouting justice but shouting white white white.
Official press release from political parties were released a few hours after this news broke of this case saying how a race is to blame, not an individual.
 
skimread said:
Are you a lawyer? If you are guilty then you don't need a trial. It's common practice in trials around the world. If their is a discrepancy in evidence then ONLY call that evidence. The issue here is if it was premeditated. He lied because he is a psycho as she testified he followed her in. Then only bring evidence of the discrepancy. I feel she didn't have to testify as her victim statement from a year ago should have been used instead. If you call that defending him then it shows you don't care about the victim having to relive the ordeal
Your response is indicative of seeing the case in the public's interest instead of the victim. That is not justice or legal process but is called soap opera. The mob wanted to turn this into race, the mob was in court, NOT shouting justice but shouting white white white.
Official press release from political parties were released a few hours after this news broke of this case saying how a race is to blame, not an individual.
Click to expand...

The fact that the court found that it was premeditated makes all the difference. I do not care about public interest. I care about justice. A premeditated offence attracts a higher sanction. The NPA sought to prove that and they succeeded. She wanted to testify, it does not matter what you feel, she is the survivor here, not you.
 
skimread said:
Are you a lawyer? If you are guilty then you don't need a trial. It's common practice in trials around the world. If their is a discrepancy in evidence then ONLY call that evidence. The issue here is if it was premeditated. He lied because he is a psycho as she testified he followed her in. Then only bring evidence of the discrepancy. I feel she didn't have to testify as her victim statement from a year ago should have been used instead. If you call that defending him then it shows you don't care about the victim having to relive the ordeal
Your response is indicative of seeing the case in the public's interest instead of the victim. That is not justice or legal process but is called soap opera. The mob wanted to turn this into race, the mob was in court, NOT shouting justice but shouting white white white.
Official press release from political parties were released a few hours after this news broke of this case saying how a race is to blame, not an individual.
Click to expand...

For one second, be honest and stop pretending as if you care about the victim.
 
rambo919 said:
Preserving whiteness? Who talks like that?
Click to expand...
This is what I hate about this case. That's why I posted so many tweets claiming white privilege that get retweeted by so many people. This was a misinformation campaign from the start. Started a few hours after this became news by the paid for Zuma's BLF releasing a press releasing claiming "He is a true reflection of all white males. A species that is dangerous, enabled and racist"


hungrymamba said:
The fact that the court found that it was premeditated makes all the difference. I do not care about public interest. I care about justice. A premeditated offence attracts a higher sanction. The NPA sought to prove that and they succeeded
Click to expand...

hungrymamba said:
If the NPA did not go through with the trial, he would only have gone down for the rape, not premeditated rape
Click to expand...



This is a sickening statement to make. There is no such thing is premeditated rape.
You want the court to find him guilty of something that doesn't exist.

Rape and sexual assault can't be differentiated between non premeditated and premeditated. All rape is premeditated. It's not like self defense where you shoot someone in your home. Circumstance can't force you to rape or sexually assault someone.

Provide the case law to support your statement I have never heard a judge EVER say a sexual assault was not premeditated. if it was a valid defense then all rapists would use the defense. You are mixing and matching legal concepts.

hungrymamba said:
She wanted to testify
Click to expand...
I have never heard of a 7 year old who wanted to testify a year after they were raped. That age no one has an idea of justice.

hungrymamba said:
For one second, be honest and stop pretending as if you care about the victim.
Click to expand...
You are not an expert in trauma or child trauma. That is the job for the child trauma specialist in the field. You are making wild claims that her testifying live a year later and being cross examined is for her benefit.
 
hungrymamba said:
You were opposed to NPA proceeding with the trial - you were happy with him pleading guilty and telling half-truths. You and your cohorts didn't want him held accountable. It was never about race, I couldn't care if he was white, black or green.

When I argued that the NPA needed to proceed with the trial - there was a lot of push back because he had 'pleaded' guilty, why should we accept the word of the rapist? Why his own terms? As has proven, not only is he a liar, he is also manipulative and a junkie.

If the NPA did not go through with the trial, he would only have gone down for the rape, not premeditated rape, defeating the ends of justice would not have been added, possession of drugs would not have been proven. You were just happy with preserving whiteness at the expense of justice.
Click to expand...

There is no such charge as premeditated rape, so now what?
 
hungrymamba said:
Read up, a lot of you did not want him to go to trial.
Click to expand...

Because he already plead guilty, and WILL go to jail. He WILL pay for what he did.
Again, give me one quote where someone wants him to not pay for what he did, or want him to get a reduced sentence.
 
hungrymamba said:
Read up, a lot of you did not want him to go to trial.
Click to expand...
Yes, because it takes up court resources (aka time) if he had pleaded guilty.

YOU (and whoever wanted it to continue) are RAPING other victims of rape due to them having to wait for their cases to be attended too. If we had efficient courts with lots of capacity, then you and the others insistence could be entertained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X