The lawyer that specialized in cybercrime and is the president of the cybercrime studies on the National association of criminal laywer is the one you say is bad source ?
So it's only a specialist if it goes with your point of view... Well guess we will have to wait for the case to be judged (if it will ever get to that point)
Thanks for that insight, was a very good read.Well, it's missing ONE aspect of a crime as defined in any respectable Roman law derived system in the world (including Brazilian law), but only because it hasn't gone to trial yet. Please assume everything below relates to Roman law systems.
Anyone that has a passing knowledge in Law knows that the definition of a crime is : an act or an omission that violates a predefined code of conduct (aka the criminal code) and that is fully punishable under law, as in it was not committed in self defense, under necessity or during strict duty. These are the three aspects of any crime (I've condensed the first two in the first sentence).
As for the exceptions to the punitive responsibility:
* Strict duty basically means you are an officer of the law and are expected to behave in a certain way, even it means violating a code of conduct. (Not the case)
* Necessity means you should not be expected not to behave in a certain way , often because of the circumstances surrounding your act. Say stepping on another person to flee a life threatening fire. (Not the case again)
* And self defense is pretty self explanatory: to repeal an injust threat or direct violence to your or someone else's rights. (Neymar's hope). However, it has to be proportional to the threat/violence or else you are responsible for using excessive force. Also, it has to be reasonable, as in, was it the best alternative.
Anyway, this woman was accusing Neymar (as far as I know) not on social media , but from filing a police report. At first sight, it seems to me that Neymar, unreasonably, used his social media presence to discredit her, instead of presenting his "evidence" at the same venue she used to 'attack' him (excuse me for this, I'm trying to be as clear as possible while not using my native language). Thus, it seems to me that those using the self defense card have not noticed that one key aspect of the institute is (possibly) missing from the equation.
I'm also pretty sure Neymar's attorney's are absolutely not ignorant to this fact , but after weighting the public's opinion and his legal possibilities, opted for the public discourse way. His image is at stake and, honestly, that's his most relevant asset, even if it risks a criminal conviction later on.
As I said, English is not my native language and it's even harder to argue about my professional knowledge, specially considering I'm preaching about Roman derived law system in a place where common law is overwhelmingly used . But those are the first things that came to my mind after giving it a thought.
.Disclosure: I'm a career judge not currently acting on a criminal district
Perfectly put out, and I think most will be able to understand the points you are making here. Thanks for taking your time to post that.Well, it's missing ONE aspect of a crime as defined in any respectable Roman law derived system in the world (including Brazilian law), but only because it hasn't gone to trial yet. Please assume everything below relates to Roman law systems.
Anyone that has a passing knowledge in Law knows that the definition of a crime is : an act or an omission that violates a predefined code of conduct (aka the criminal code) and that is fully punishable under law, as in it was not committed in self defense, under necessity or during strict duty. These are the three aspects of any crime (I've condensed the first two in the first sentence).
As for the exceptions to the punitive responsibility:
* Strict duty basically means you are an officer of the law and are expected to behave in a certain way, even it means violating a code of conduct. (Not the case)
* Necessity means you should not be expected not to behave in a certain way , often because of the circumstances surrounding your act. Say stepping on another person to flee a life threatening fire. (Not the case again)
* And self defense is pretty self explanatory: to repeal an injust threat or direct violence to your or someone else's rights. (Neymar's hope). However, it has to be proportional to the threat/violence or else you are responsible for using excessive force. Also, it has to be reasonable, as in, was it the best alternative.
Anyway, this woman was accusing Neymar (as far as I know) not on social media , but from filing a police report. At first sight, it seems to me that Neymar, unreasonably, used his social media presence to discredit her, instead of presenting his "evidence" at the same venue she used to 'attack' him (excuse me for this, I'm trying to be as clear as possible while not using my native language). Thus, it seems to me that those using the self defense card have not noticed that one key aspect of the institute is (possibly) missing from the equation.
I'm also pretty sure Neymar's attorney's are absolutely not ignorant to this fact , but after weighting the public's opinion and his legal possibilities, opted for the public discourse way. His image is at stake and, honestly, that's his most relevant asset, even if it risks a criminal conviction later on.
As I said, English is not my native language and it's even harder to argue about my professional knowledge, specially considering I'm preaching about Roman derived law system in a place where common law is overwhelmingly used . But those are the first things that came to my mind after giving it a thought.
.Disclosure: I'm a career judge not currently acting on a criminal district
Thanks for that insight, was a very good read.
Indeed you might be right when you say they probably opted for him disclosing the conversations to be the best course of action.
In the edit part of her name was shown and when scrolling the blur didn't follow fast enough one part of her body (breasts). I still have no idea how a judge would interpret this since it appear to be only a mistake on the edit, instead of something it was done on purpose.
Perfectly put out, and I think most will be able to understand the points you are making here. Thanks for taking your time to post that.
Purpose (or lack thereof) is simply not relevant to this particular crime (CP 218-C). The key aspect here is the lack of consent and the public nature of the release, which are (I guess) not debatable.
The way I see it, the only relevant discussion to be had is about self defense or not. A crime was (apparently) committed, only thing left to see if he's is punishable for it or if there's an exception to his punitive accountability.
The CP 218-C is clear cut and dry that it's not about animus , so it doesn't really matter if he has exposed her thinking it'd be excusable as self defense. The court of public opinion isn't the court of law, and his actions exposed this woman, her body, her face, her name and her kid's name. Like you, I don't work currently in the criminal field of Brazilian law, but the virtual crime aspect of this debacle is quite easy to discern what happened, and I don't think self defense would stand in a court at all in this particular case. There were ways for him to show the text messages without showing her images or name at all if he was more careful, then there wouldn't be even a crime investigation on this particular fact.
One thing I'm not quite sure of is if the fact that's what he did is actually coded in the first paragraph of CP 218-C (previously had an intimate relationship with the victim, adding 2/3 to the sentence) allows him a sursis or not, since he is a first-time offender (if we do not take into account a rape condemnation) and the legal penalty is 1-5 years. What do you think?
It's always good to find a fellow Era member working in our legal system in this crazy times, haha.
You're right as in animus has nothing to do with article 218-C. It has everything to do, however, with the exemption of criminal accountability / self defense. Since one is being given as a justification to the other, animus is intrinsically attached to the verification of the criminal accountability in this case., so it doesn't really matter if he has exposed her thinking it'd be excusable as self defense.
Agreed completely, but like I said, I don't see any court of law finding reasonable his response to something he was accused in a police report with images of an woman he had an intimate relationship with. He could do his defense without showing her images, it's incredibly disproportionate, and regardless the fact that I agree that his team of lawyers weighed on this before the video, it was an incredibly bad call. What I mean that it doesn't requires animus was in the sense of needed to be seen as "revenge" to qualify as crime, I can't really see a scenario where showing naked pictures and the name of the woman he is been accused of rape to 119 million of people at least could possibly be seen as self defense against a rape accusation.[
Well, I honestly don't think the self defense line will be accepted, not because it is not applicable to this particular crime - after all, self defense is applicable to every type of crime, since it pertains broadly to criminal accountability and not criminal conduct -, but because it was (perhaps) used unreasonably and disproportionately in this specific case.
Regarding the first paragraph of article 218-C, despite the law stating that either intimate relations or revenge porn animus is enough to increase the maximum jail time, I'm positive I've been seeing precedents conditioning its incidence to the simultaneous presence of both. I think that's the safest bet, so the DA would have to potentially prove his intention, which frankly is quite hard to do, particularly because it's the main part of the criminal accountability exception argument regarding the caput crime, which will be hammered on by his attorneys.
Assuming he gets the full first paragraph treatment, I honestly don't know a thing about his credentials to weight in on the possibility of his jail time surpassing 2 years. I'd say for first time offenders with work, known address, non violent behaviours, probably minimum time, which would make him (barely) eligible. Sorry if I don't know if he is or not a first time offender, no idea really.
Edit:
I'd like to reinforce my reply to this specific part or your reasoning:
You're right as in animus has nothing to do with article 218-C. It has everything to do, however, with the exemption of criminal accountability / self defense. Since one is being given as a justification to the other, animus is intrinsically attached to the verification of the criminal accountability in this case.
blurred images exclude revenge porn intent, show degree of effort to protect her intimacy. Her side will argue that's not enough and still constitutes a crime, his side will argue that nu-uh, also self defence. Some reasonable arguments on both sides. They'll court fite. If she loses the rape charge, she'll almost certainly lose this too.One can say that it's for self defense, but is it really? He was accused of rape, so his reaction is to expose her sextings, name and her kid's name? He might think consciously that this isn't revenge. But at least to me, it's quite clear that it's connected with the presumption that once she was so into him, she was sending him sextings all the time, then what she said couldn't possibly be anything but a set up. I do think that in this case, both the two qualifiers for the first paragraph are there: intimate relationship with the victim and revenge porn, in the sense he had the idea that showing what he sent to him absolves him somehow. The agent that is practicing the crime might not have a full conscious understanding of the reason of what he has done, but the consequences to the woman are quite clearly the consequences of revenge porn.
The pictures weren't all blurried. Showing 'degree of effort to protect her intimacy' and still exposing her breasts (not blurried), a full frontal picture of her naked ass (only partially blurried), her face, her name and not to mention her kid's name in a private chat she had with him and without her consent falls under the CP 218-C. Anyone that analyzes the video throughly would find that at some points, all of that was shown. She "won't win" a criminal case of being victim of revenge porn because as we know a case like this will be a subject of a public criminal action, and it will be handled by a D.A.. What he did, clumsily or not, it still falls under CP 218-C.blurred images exclude revenge porn intent, show degree of effort to protect her intimacy. Her side will argue that's not enough and still constitutes a crime, his side will argue that nu-uh, also self defence. Some reasonable arguments on both sides. They'll court fite. If she loses the rape charge, she'll almost certainly lose this too.
Also calling the moderation because I don't agree with your point of view? What's next? Ad hominems all around? Because I'm pretty sure there's a falacy where you stated his age to try to discredit him...
face and name are irrelevant, since a matter of public record from the moment she pressed the rape charges, and by themselves arent enough to incur sanctions from 218c. If a pic is partially blurred, it aint full frontal. Showing a kid's name aint an offence in itself, so i dunno why you keep repeating that bit. She most likely wont win, even if she hires a lawyer to assist the parquet, because her case is weak and his defence has mitigating factors. The best she's got is, as you mentioned, the breast pic, which, sure, would normally be enough to fill 218c. Penal law usually doesnt look at stuff in a vacuum tho, so.The pictures weren't all blurried. Showing 'degree of effort to protect her intimacy' and still exposing her breasts (not blurried), a full frontal picture of her naked ass (only partially blurried), her face, her name and not to mention her kid's name in a private chat she had with him and without her comsent falls under the CP 218-C. Anyone that analyzes the video throughly would find that at some points, all of that was shown. She "won't win" a criminal case of being victim of revenge porn because as we know a case like it's public criminal action, and it will be handled by a D.A.. What he did, clumsily or not, it still falls under CP 218-C.
The way you are talking, you are implying that it only "look at stuff" in a vacuum against the victim, and even if I am not a lawyer that works in the criminal field know that's not how it works. Neymar's posting naked images of the woman that he had an intimate relationship with, exposing her image, name and making it completely easy to identify her falls under the CP 218-C. Period. I have absolutely no doubt about that, and contextualizing that he made it possible to identify her by showing her face, her name along with her breasts will certainly be deciding factors, since a crime doesn't happen in a vacuum either. "Self defense" by exposing an woman's naked body isn't really a measured and reasonable thing anyone could argue for.face and name are irrelevant, since a matter of public record from the moment she pressed the rape charges, and by themselves arent enough to incur sanctions from 218c. If a pic is partially blurred, it aint full frontal. Showing a kid's name aint an offence in itself, so i dunno why you keep repeating that bit. She most likely wont win, even if she hires a lawyer to assist the parquet, because her case is weak and his defence has mitigating factors. The best she's got is, as you mentioned, the breast pic, which, sure, would normally be enough to fill 218c. Penal law usually doesnt look at stuff in a vacuum tho, so.
Then perhaps you should remember the bit where criminal law errs on the side of the accused? (in theory, anyway)The way you are talking, you are implying that it only "look at stuff" in a vacuum against the victim, and even if I am not a lawyer that works in the criminal field know that's not how it works. Neymar's posting naked images of the woman that he had an intimate relationship with, exposing her image, name and making it completely easy to identify her falls under the CP 218-C. Period. I have absolutely no doubt about that, and contextualizing that he made it possible to identify her by showing her face, her name along with her breasts will certainly be deciding factors, since a crime doesn't happen in a vacuum either. "Self defense" by exposing an woman's naked body isn't really a measured and reasonable thing anyone could argue for.
And yet thats almost certainly what will be argued if it comes to a trial. Probably successfully too."Self defense" by exposing an woman's naked body isn't really a measured and reasonable thing anyone could argue for.
Of course we all know that, innocent until proven guilty. But the materiality of what Neymar did with the exposition of the images are easily traceable. Her face shows up. Her breasts shows up. Partially her ass shows up. CP 218-C is quite clear cut and dry, if he wanted to defend himself by showing the messages, the measured and reasonable response would be transcribing the texts and only that. What's more, there is this:Then perhaps you should remember the bit where criminal law errs on the side of the accused? (in theory, anyway)
The accuser is doing everything though the proper channels. The one trying to use public opinion against her is Neymar, not her.
Was only moved to a different court due to the 180 day deadline running out, because Ronaldo is dodging the papers:BTW, it seems the case about the self admitted rapist CR7 was retired........., So in the end, resulted in nothing(Link is in Brazilian-Portuguese)
What, I know Bolsonario is a major douche but giving support without knowing all the facts... DAMNTo add more, Brazil president has declared his support for Neymar because he's a good boy and he hopes he can give a hug on him before the game because of that difficult moment
What is happening here? Weren't both having sex and he became being aggressive? Why are they clothed? WTF???Apparently this is the screenshot that the girl sent to a famous tv show here in Brazil (the show will probably air the whole video or at least an edit of it?)
Supposedly this is in the second meeting... when he got there and saw she was recording.What is happening here? Weren't both having sex and he became being aggressive? Why are they clothed? WTF???
Apparently this is the screenshot that the girl sent to a famous tv show here in Brazil (the show will probably air the whole video or at least an edit of it?)
No idea, her story is not linear... first she says that they were having sex and he started being agressive and that she recorded it all.Was he being aggressive towards her before this to justify having a camera recording in what cleary seems as an effort to catch someone?
That does makes senseShe's live on an interview at SBT network.
She's saying that he was slapping her and at first it was ok. She said stop and he stopped, said he was sorry and then resumed. Then they changed position and he kept slapping her. (Holding her) She then left afterthat.
She also says that she asked for condoms which he didn't have but they had sex without .
Her explanation to keep chatting with him is that at first she didn't realize she was raped. When she did realize that he violated her she kept talking in order to lure him to meet her again. (Hence the video recording on the second meeting)
So far her version is sound. Now we wait for Neymar's version.
I did in the post above, but when they lay on the bed she suddenly out of nowhere deliver a huge slap ( I would presume in his face) and he then proceed to cut all and try to leave.can someone translate, it starts off pretty calm and just suddenly goes left
The video was released
Just a small cut, we need the rest for sure.
But the 1 min released, they get into the room, they lay on the bed and you can listen she giving Neymar a sounding slap.
Neymar - No, not like that, I dont like that
Girl - You will hit me today
Neymar - No, cut it
He proceeds to leave, she then start hitting him over and over saying that he hit her the day before, and left her all alone in the bedroom.
Yeah, thats too staged to be from a girl whos traumatized in my opinion. She hit him hard so he would fought back and she would get that on camera.....
THANK YOU.also i think there's an important distinction, i think we can take allegations seriously and not throwing . a victim under the bus without deciding an outcome without investigations and trials commencing
Another translation for reference, this is more or less what I could understand.
The calm part, very hard to listen:
Neymar: like what?
*First slap*
Neymar: Noo no no no don't hit me like that no.
Girl: No? Are you going to hit me? No? Are you going to hit me, huh? no?
*She gets up, starts to hit Neymar*
Girl: But I'm gonna hit you. Do you know why? Do you know why I'm gonna hit you? Do you know why? Because you assaulted me yesterday.
Neymar: calm down
Girl: Yesterday you left me here alone...
Another translation for reference, this is more or less what I could understand.
The calm part, very hard to listen:
Neymar: like what?
*First slap*
Neymar: Noo no no no don't hit me like that no.
Girl: No? Are you going to hit me? No? Are you going to hit me, huh? no?
*She gets up, starts to hit Neymar*
Girl: But I'm gonna hit you. Do you know why? Do you know why I'm gonna hit you? Do you know why? Because you assaulted me yesterday.
Neymar: calm down
Girl: Yesterday you left me here alone...