Some idiot in the northern suburbs (for those that don't know, the northern suburbs are well known for housing the underclass or the lumpenproletariat for the Marxists among you) decided that it would be a good idea to teach his ex to lock her doors at night by breaking in and raping her.
You heard me (or would know if you read the article), he raped her.
He didn't just enter and wake her up while she was sleeping, he went in, bound her and used a sex toy to rape her.
Well, she'll probably lock her doors now, but it's not because of his "good intentions". She'll probably be scared that people will break in and rape her.
Brilliant mate. What better way to teach someone to do something then by scarring them for life.
And get this, the guy pleaded not guilty. He apparently apologised for raping her, and pleaded not guilty.
As you can see, I don't like this guy. I don't think that rape should be used by anyone for any purpose, let alone "teaching". Based on what I know about rape, I'm guessing that this guy was probably pissed that they broke up and really did this for power reasons.
Either way I'm going to say that it would be laughable if he tries to use a "I was teaching her an important lesson" as a defence.
The article does say this though:
"Defence lawyers told the jury they would be asked to consider whether the man believed the acts were consensual."So let me get this straight. They're trying to argue that the man believe consent based on what? Leaving her doors unlocked? Doing that means that she consents to whatever he wants?