Posts like these are usually locked quickly because they get out of hand with some posts from folks who don't agree with women falsely claiming rape and assault then you have the folks who think the player has to be guilty and want to castigate them. I always hear, let the courts do their job and deal with the case BUT even after that is done, you have folks still saying Dani is guilty and it's a shame against women. I'm of the notion that if the courts overturn a case then LEGALLY that person is cleared. This notion we still have to treat them as guilty is wild to me. Same with other cases, some on here still think Mendy is guilty. Let's be fair to folks who have been legally cleared, and let's also have sympathy for the REAL victims. Let's not conflate both.
Dani Alves | Rape conviction overturned on appeal
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Good post
You know why mass murderers hire lawyers? Because they might find a way to get them off legally. The legal systems aren’t perfect. There are loopholes that get exposed.
Now in this specific case he changed his story like 4 times, eventually ending on the defence that he was drunk and he was found guilty. Yes he’s now been released by a different set of judges. Does that mean he’s innocent? Not necessarily, it means that his team found a way out legally and used it.
It really isn't a good post.
First "folks who don't agree with women falsely claiming rape". Nobody agrees with that, stop trying to create a strawman.
Secondly, "let the courts do their job". Alves was originally found guilty in court. That it has now been overturned doesn't change the fact that the original jury thought there was enough evidence against him to send him to jail.
You don't still have to treat him as guilty, that's another strawman. But at the same time not everyone has to assume he's innocent now either.
This is where you're not getting it, ''First "folks who don't agree with women falsely claiming rape". Nobody agrees with that, stop trying to create a strawman'' you keep bringing up strawman arguments but the case more often than not is many on here tell those saying one side of the argument not to say those things and focus solely on the woman's side which is the point here. Now in terms of the courts originally finding him guilty, it's what we have appeals for, appeals are the FINAL judgment. You don't appeal the judgment of the appeal. At this point the FINAL judgment is that it's been overturned, and he is a free man, free of those charges. What you FEEL about it has little to no significance on the facts of the case.
Someone can be legally cleared and the victim can still be a REAL victim. Your post doesn’t make much sense.
It makes sense when you pay attention to the point that we know one and are assuming the other. We know for a fact he's been legally cleared but what is being done is saying ''he's been cleared but that doesn't mean he didnt do it'' so assuming the victim is REAL. The only 100% certain fact here is that he has been cleared, i'm of the notion that once cleared, stop the labels.
Exactly. What the people are doing to poor OJ Simpson is terrible.
on caf, you're pretty much always guilty, even after you've been cleared of the charges. from that moment you're guilty of either bribing the court because "money talks" or simply exposing the loopholes. so you're basically always guilty of something regardless of the outcome.
legal system only works when the rich, privileged "stupid" guy with loads of money, what pro footballer obviously is by default, is locked in prison before any details are even revealed.
if you were stupid enough to party with the girls under the influence, you were stupid enough to rape them and that's what will keep hanging next to your name until you die.
legal system only works when the rich, privileged "stupid" guy with loads of money, what pro footballer obviously is by default, is locked in prison before any details are even revealed.
if you were stupid enough to party with the girls under the influence, you were stupid enough to rape them and that's what will keep hanging next to your name until you die.
So the caf bar association disagrees with the court.
This kind of reply is the problem. You know what you're doing by replying this way and it's what I mentioned in my original post, conflating of things. You're intentionally making it out that i'm sympathizing with the accused over the supposed victims when that's not my point but go ahead. Have a lovely day.
I obviously don't know enough about the case to have an opinion on whether he should have been convicted, or whether the conviction should have been overturned. That's largely a legal issue, applied to a criminal trial where the burden of proof is exceptionally high. It may well be it was the correct outcome from a legal POV.
But I do know the standard of proof in a criminal trial doesn't apply to public opinion, nor was it ever intended to, nor should it. The idea that the outcome of this trial should dictate what we think happened is complete nonsense. That's not the function of the trial, or the subsequent appeal.
If someone is accused of rape and then gives five different accounts of what happened while the victim's account is more credible, I'm happy to conclude they are likely a rapist. If that's unfair on Dani Alves, he can chalk it up as the cost of repeatedly lying in court.
It's also why both I and the public at large are happy to call someone like Conor McGregor a rapist, even though he was not criminally convicted and was "only" found to have committed rape in a civil case that is decided on the balance of probabilty.
The criminal standard is appropriate when the stakes are the state deciding whether to deprives someone of their liberty. The standard for deciding public opinion, much lower.
Last edited:
If you wish to use how you FEEL to speak on this matter then you leave yourself open to others FEELING the opposite disagreeing with you and thus creating the kind of conflict often seen on here. If you simply used the facts and the only fact we do know is that he has been now cleared, then that's that. The court of public opinion is a subjective one and no one is beholden to that judgement, feel the way you feel but don't impose it as if it's the LAW, it's not, never has and never will. If they found him guilty I'd be here saying the same thing, the courts decision is final.
Of course I know what I’m doing. I’m giving you an example that exposes your extremely flawed logic.
Anyone choosing that username should just have the IP banned during the sign up attempt.
They did find him guilty, remember?
Who is talking about it imposing it as the law? I don't see anyone arguing we should grab Alves and lock him in a dungeon somewhere for 25 years based on our opinion.
But people are free to still think Alves committed rape. And they are also free to act in line with that opinion, within the bounds of the law.
Which includes declining to associate with him, declining to support him, declining to employ him, declining to sponsor him, and criticising or protesting against others who do any of the above. And if others want to disagree or push back against that, they can do that too.
But if their position is "well this is the outcome of the criminal trial, so we all have to act like we think he is completely innocent" then they have misunderstood the purpose and function of a criminal trial.
Agree.
Devil's advocates usually have to base their arguments on logic.
What happened after that? What happened during the appeal? What is the purpose of an appeal? Or is an appeal now inconsequential to the CAF Bar Association. Rinse and repeat, someone with my opinion has been cornered by 4-5 CAF Harvey Specters. I digress. Have a lovely day guys.
Problem is logic on the CAF is feelings based not facts based. Before I get reported and get a warning, I digress.
Bye.
I truly hope that means I won’t see you for the rest of the day.
You're banned now, but I assume you'll look back anyway. And I wanted to add that your own logic is an utter mess. First, as has been pointed, he has been found not criminally guilty. That's not the same as not having done anything. Second, you conflate opinions and feelings/facts. People have opinions on all kinds of things and they're often (as in, very, very often) based on imperfect knowledge. Or do you never have an opinion on anything until the courts have come up with a verdict? Of course not.
Maybe English isn't your first language? Cause it's quite common in English to something like 'I feel like it's like that' - which sounds like an emotional statement, but in this sort of context, it's to express an opinion. It's really a synonym for 'I think that it's like that' - which I suppose you wouldn't dismiss as a feeling.
So: he's not criminally guilty, but based on the facts of the case as they are publicly known, people may anyway think that the non-consensual sex did happen. That's fine and acceptable logic, even if your conclusion is different. And then we can all discuss our respective conclusions, but dismissing them as invalid is, well, invalid.
I tried to read the judicial document about his conviction being overturned. It's pretty technical, the gist is that there were a number of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim, which the original conviction acknowledged but claimed were not sufficiently important. This new sentence says no, those inconsistencies should affect the credibility of the victim more.
I didn't read the whole thing, as it is very long and tedious, but nothing I saw seemed compelling enough to re-evaluate the whole thing.
I didn't read the whole thing, as it is very long and tedious, but nothing I saw seemed compelling enough to re-evaluate the whole thing.