Wat can the law do if the policewoman dont admit?? Wat evidence
can he prove? u cant jailed someone by just saying....
as for tat cop case, what i can say is that the gal let him oral
but not vise versa.
Don't u get it 
The issue here is not about whether the girl will lose the case, or
how hard the case will be presented to the court. The fact that if
they really committed tat act, they both r guilty !!
Have u read law books before .
They have all those hypothetical scenes to make people understand
law easier. If they include every details how to make them win the
case, the law books will be 10 times thicker
An example, some story like tis goes in the penal code for culpable
homicide, saying tat if soldiers r acting according to orders, they
r not guilty of murder
Soldiers, if acting under orders from supervisor in firing a
cannon at the public, are not guilty of culpable homicide.
They r not going to include the details of the orders from
supervisor, how the soldiers fight the case, how the supervisor
fight the case or facts of the circumstances, or how much people
died. The aboove scenario may never occurs at all in history in the
first place Tis
is just for easy understanding of wat the law means since they use
a lot of bombastic words making it politically right yet confusing.
It is a statement of fact, not statement from victim or from
defendent !
Performing oral take 2 hands to clap. And they both r willing
parties. Tat is no protection for the woman even if the guy r the
only one enjoying it. If u say try to act blur, then the police on
the newspaper can also act blur too right ?
