Raven_Rayes Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 intellectuals ki open challenge.. VakeelSaab trailer meedha debate cheyyandi naatho dammu unte.. taravatha movie disco cheddam. Quote
hunkyfunky2 Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, a_sagittarian said: I did not get the part... vallu money teesukunnam ani zareena cheptundi.. for what they will take money ? See PINK movie... They keep saying they are prostitutes and took money...because she has bank deposits from a guy who is married guy ... She breaks down and says "yes we took money, now give verdict irrespective of that as sex assault has nothing to do with it". She didnt admit... effectively makes the prosecutor argument mute and irrelevant for the actual crime Quote
Chay Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 10 hours ago, ChinnaBhasha said: original pink movie lo they go for some music concert or something like that, and from there goes to resort. manollu changed it to some car breakdown and looking for help on road. so, they felt initial version point is wrong? cinema teesaru kani couldn't get over the conservative thinking I felt. soul miss ainattu anpinchindi, when they twisted story mana 2 states lo small towns ekkuva so ila concerts nightclubs ante janalu connect kaaru.. anduke marchuntaru Quote
a_sagittarian Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, hunkyfunky2 said: See PINK movie... They keep saying they are prostitutes and took money...because she has bank deposits from a guy who is married guy ... She breaks down and says "yes we took money, now give verdict irrespective of that as sex assault has nothing to do with it". She didnt admit... effectively makes the prosecutor argument mute and irrelevant for the actual crime She says Minal withdrew her consent even after taking money. Taking money from married guy is different from taking money from these guys kadaa. I watched it multiple times. I still did not get it. Quote
gutlogummadi Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, hunkyfunky2 said: See PINK movie... They keep saying they are prostitutes and took money...because she has bank deposits from a guy who is married guy ... She breaks down and says "yes we took money, now give verdict irrespective of that as sex assault has nothing to do with it". She didnt admit... effectively makes the prosecutor argument mute and irrelevant for the actual crime Anna same question, why zareena/anjali admits yes we took money? Was she only pros**te in the group? Or why she falsely admitted? Quote
Raven_Rayes Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, gutlogummadi said: Anna same question, why zareena/anjali admits yes we took money? Was she only pros**te in the group? Or why she falsely admitted? malli choodu cinema ni. clear aythay doubts. Quote
Zindagi247 Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, gutlogummadi said: Anna same question, why zareena/anjali admits yes we took money? Was she only pros**te in the group? Or why she falsely admitted? to stop PR;s torture. she felt losing the case is better than asnweiring thouse questiosn Quote
Raven_Rayes Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Zindagi247 said: to stop PR;s torture yes. godPK took care of PR in the end. That is the entire film. Quote
Popular Post a_sagittarian Posted April 11, 2021 Popular Post Report Posted April 11, 2021 18 minutes ago, gutlogummadi said: Anna same question, why zareena/anjali admits yes we took money? Was she only pros**te in the group? Or why she falsely admitted? The explanation was given by Falak in the next scene itself but let me explain a bit about their position in the case due to the question raised by the Prosecution about the exchange of money. The main argument of the prosecution was that the girls had taken money and agreed to consensual sex but having disputed over the money then attacked the victim. And by consistently bringing up the matter of money the prosecution was trying to drift the court towards the point that the guys in this case were not the perpetrators but the victims. To start with there was no concrete evidence about the money changing hands and it was just one’s word against the other’s. By dragging it around the prosecution was trying to cast shadow on the girls’ character as well as their defense. The video footage unfortunately shows them in poor light and Falak knew that no matter what they say they had no evidence that they did not accept money. So by agreeing to the allegation, Falak forces them to move on to the point that even if they had reached an agreement on the matter of money, they withdrew consent and by law should have been absolved of their end of the bargain. At this point the people as an audience and the court are forced to address the fact that at any point, be it a man or a woman, whether of sound or questionable character, if they withdraw their consent then the act becomes sexual assault and is punishable by Law. Quora 4 Quote
a_sagittarian Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 This pink is really sensitive topic. If people in relationships gets to this level of consent, Chala disturbances create avtayi and its not easy to solve them. Quote
Raven_Rayes Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, a_sagittarian said: The explanation was given by Falak in the next scene itself but let me explain a bit about their position in the case due to the question raised by the Prosecution about the exchange of money. The main argument of the prosecution was that the girls had taken money and agreed to consensual sex but having disputed over the money then attacked the victim. And by consistently bringing up the matter of money the prosecution was trying to drift the court towards the point that the guys in this case were not the perpetrators but the victims. To start with there was no concrete evidence about the money changing hands and it was just one’s word against the other’s. By dragging it around the prosecution was trying to cast shadow on the girls’ character as well as their defense. The video footage unfortunately shows them in poor light and Falak knew that no matter what they say they had no evidence that they did not accept money. So by agreeing to the allegation, Falak forces them to move on to the point that even if they had reached an agreement on the matter of money, they withdrew consent and by law should have been absolved of their end of the bargain. At this point the people as an audience and the court are forced to address the fact that at any point, be it a man or a woman, whether of sound or questionable character, if they withdraw their consent then the act becomes sexual assault and is punishable by Law. Quora hmmm.. Quote
Raven_Rayes Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 1 minute ago, a_sagittarian said: This pink is really sensitive topic. If people in relationships gets to this level of consent, Chala disturbances create avtayi and its not easy to solve them. its easy if you respect your spouse. 1 Quote
gutlogummadi Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, a_sagittarian said: The explanation was given by Falak in the next scene itself but let me explain a bit about their position in the case due to the question raised by the Prosecution about the exchange of money. The main argument of the prosecution was that the girls had taken money and agreed to consensual sex but having disputed over the money then attacked the victim. And by consistently bringing up the matter of money the prosecution was trying to drift the court towards the point that the guys in this case were not the perpetrators but the victims. To start with there was no concrete evidence about the money changing hands and it was just one’s word against the other’s. By dragging it around the prosecution was trying to cast shadow on the girls’ character as well as their defense. The video footage unfortunately shows them in poor light and Falak knew that no matter what they say they had no evidence that they did not accept money. So by agreeing to the allegation, Falak forces them to move on to the point that even if they had reached an agreement on the matter of money, they withdrew consent and by law should have been absolved of their end of the bargain. At this point the people as an audience and the court are forced to address the fact that at any point, be it a man or a woman, whether of sound or questionable character, if they withdraw their consent then the act becomes sexual assault and is punishable by Law. Quora 🙏🙏 vakeel saab anna nuvvu india lo men consent withdraw cheste molestation or attempt to rape case pettidobbutaru. Quote
gutlogummadi Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 Pallavi ni car lo kidnap chesi em chesaru bro? Was she raped or molested? Clarity missing Quote
Raven_Rayes Posted April 11, 2021 Report Posted April 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, gutlogummadi said: 🙏🙏 vakeel saab anna nuvvu india lo men consent withdraw cheste molestation or attempt to rape case pettidobbutaru. pls name one case where this happened. millions of cases where husband forces the wife for s3x in India. and they don't even make the news. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.