Appeals court reduces prison sentence of convicted rapist, because the attack “only” lasted 11 minutes long


SWITZERLAND— On Sunday, August 8th, hundreds of people gathered outside of a Swiss appeals court to protest a shocking an disgraceful ruling in a rape case. 

Last month, a Swiss appeals court made the decision to reduce the prison sentence of a convicted rapist. While one may think that this decision came about due to new evidence, that is not the case.

The fact is, the decision was made by the court based on the fact that the rape only lasted 11 minutes, and the victim had not been severely injured, local Swiss media reported. 

As expected, this decision did not sit well with many, especially female activist groups.

The protesters, who were comprised mostly of females, gathered in front of the Basel courthouse in Switzerland, holding up banners and shouting:

“11 minutes are 11 minutes too much!”

According to the online news site, the protesters called for justice in the decision which lowered the 33-year-old defendant’s prison sentence from four years and three months to just three years.

In a clear instance of victim shaming, during last months ruling, the judge reportedly also said that the female rape victim had sent out “certain signals,” Swiss media reported.

A spokeswoman for the court refused to further explain that statement that was made by the judge.

U.S. News reported that the rape took place in February of last year outside of the victims flat, after she reportedly visited a local nightclub. The woman was reportedly raped by the 33-year-old defendant and his 17-year-old companion, who is currently still being tried in a Swiss juvenile court.

The identities of the victim nor both defendants have been released at this time, however both of the alleged rapists are said to be Portuguese nationals. 

A lawyer for the victim said she was shocked by the appeal court’s verdict, which appeared to partially blame the victim for the rape.

The judge had announced the verdict in the courtroom last month but a written ruling will be published in a few weeks, the court said.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Sen. Cotton: Biden administration responsible for illegal immigrants committing ‘rape’ and ‘murder’ in America

August 7, 2021

MANCHESTER, NH – In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) pointed the finger of blame directly at the Biden administration for crimes committed by illegal aliens crossing the porous border of the United States.

In an embedded video filmed while he was in New Hampshire for a fundraiser, Cotton told Breitbart:

“[W]e see stories time and time again of illegal aliens committing murder, or rape, or carjackings.

“People who shouldn’t be in our country to begin with, but they’re here because the Biden administration won’t enforce the law, won’t secure our border.”

Cotton also asserted that illegal immigration also results in “chaos” and an influx of drugs throughout the country.

He told Breitbart:

“The very fact of crossing our border illegally shows that you disrespect our law.

“Our southern border is in chaos, and that brings chaos into our streets as well.

“I know we may be in New Hampshire here, but every town in New Hampshire is a border town, because so much of the drugs that you see in New Hampshire and across the country comes from our southern border.”

Breitbart also reports that Cotton stated that most of the drugs involved in the current opioid crisis come from China and are funneled through the southern border.

He said:

“The evidence on that is clear.” 

Cotton continued:

 “China has super case laboratories where they make the precursors to synthetic opioids like fentanyl. 

“They send them [drugs] to the cartels in Mexico which finished the job by pressing them into pills or cutting them into other drugs, and they ship them into America.”

Cotton pointed out that this vast influx of drugs is behind the massive number of drug overdoses in this country.

He told Breitbart:

“Our boarder(sic) patrol does a good job of trying to detect these drugs, which in some cases are literally shipped over in the quantity that they could kill every American. 

“They’re so deadly. And just such a small amount is captured at our border, but that’s just what they catch, think about what they miss. 

“That’s one reason why we just saw the terrible tragedy of the biggest number of drug overdoses in American history last year.”

Breitbart also reports that Cotton advocated finishing the border wall as a pathway to “getting ‘control of our border.’” 

In addition, Cotton also advocated reforming the current immigration system in a manner similar to Canada’s current plan.  

He suggested a system “which would be based on a ‘simple mathematical formula that awards points based on your level of education, the field you have, your education, and your ability to speak English, whether or not you have distinctive contributions in your field.’”

Cotton also agreed with the recent ruling by a federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Texas on former president Obama’s DACA program.  Hanan ruled that the DACA program was unlawful, and he prevented federal government approval of all new applications to the program.

The Senator told Breitbart:

“The case is… about whether the President can rewrite laws that Congress has passed, and that’s what Barack Obama tried to do in 2012… 

“The president cannot simply say he is not gonna enforce an entire category of our laws, so the case was rightly decided. 

“There should be no more DACA permits issued period.”

He continued:

“And what Congress should do is address these problems in a targeted way, but what the Democrats won’t do, it’s just that they want to use the people who have received the docket benefits as leverage to get a massive amnesty.”

Elaborating on the subject of the Democrats’ push for amnesty, Cotton went on to say:

“Even when President Trump proposed a step that would give those recipients legal status in return for things like eliminating chain migration, finishing the wall, eliminating the diversity lottery, the Democrats said no, because they want a massive amnesty. 

“That’s what they’re trying to do right now, and in their big budget blow out, they wanna slip in amnesty there, they’re gonna claim it’s just for a few very sympathetic DACA recipients.”

Disturbing budget proposal shows Biden wants American taxpayers to pay for attorneys for illegal immigrants

August 7, 2021

WASHINGTON, DC- Congratulations taxpaying Americans…you’re getting fleeced. Not only are you dealing with an invasion at our southern border, but you’re also paying for it.

According to Yahoo News citing a Washington Examiner report, the administration plans to spend millions of dollars to pay for lawyers for illegal aliens crossing the border to enter the U.S.

In Biden’s immigration plan released this past week, the administration said Congress should allocate $15 million to cover the cost of private lawyers for “families and vulnerable individuals,” with another $23 million to cover “legal orientation” programs administered through the Department of Justice.

The proposal was first outlined in the FY 2022 budget, and not surprisingly is the first time that a presidential administration has proposed covering such expenses; the White House has not provided additional information.

According to a study from conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, the $15 million would only cover several thousand people, noting that immigration lawyers typically charge between $150 and $300 per hour.

Lora Ries, senior fellow for homeland security at Heritage last year looked at deportation defense costs in order to provide a frame of reference for asylum cases. That look back showed that each person spent somewhere between $2,000 and $10,000. She calculated that at the lower end of $2,000 per person, 7,500 illegal aliens would be able to have lawyers, while at the high end of $10,000, only 1,500 people would be covered.

Over the past four months alone, some 190,000 people crossed the border illegally with a family while another 64,000 unaccompanied children illegally crossed the border.

The cost for providing attorneys for those 250,000 family members and adults, at the $2,000 rate would be half a billion dollars. At the $10,000 rate, it would be $2.5 billion.

“They talk about providing legal representation to families and vulnerable individuals,” said Andrew Arthur, a former federal immigration judge from the York Immigration Court in Pennsylvania. “We don’t really know what that consists of, but it could be just families. It could be just women with children. I don’t know. The language is so vague—it’s problematic.”

Meanwhile Ries and Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., a group that advocates for tighter restrictions on immigration, pointed to a passage in the Immigration Nationality Act which the said bans the government from spending its own money on legal representation in immigration proceedings.

According to Section 292 of the law, “in any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such removal proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.

“An alien should pay for their own counsel, or there are many, many pro bono organizations and advocacy organizations that can represent them. The American taxpayer should not be paying for an attorney for someone who is removable,” said Ries.

Both Ries and Arthur said it is not fair to provide lawyers in such cases, which are civil matters, because U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents do not receive taxpayer-funded legal representation if they are the defendant in other civil matters, such as divorces or rent disputes.

“The idea that we would provide to aliens [representation] that we don’t provide to citizens is exceptional in and of itself,” said Ries. “It’s making removable aliens better off than U.S. citizens.”

Not surprisingly, some support that plan. Migration Policy Institute Senior Fellow Muzaffar Chishti said it would improve chances that illegal aliens show up in court.

“People who have legal counsel have a better chance of getting their claim successfully adjudicated, but more importantly, people who have legal counsel actually show up for hearings, Chishti said.

“Not only will it improve the due process aspect of an asylum claim but it also will make it more efficient.”

However Arthur said illegals who show up for court do so because they have their own money on the line for attorneys. He believes this latest move by Biden is the first step toward paying over $15 million to ensure every person who enters the country illegally has a better chance of being admitted.

“There’s no real identified need for this,” Arthur said. “It’s an attempt to provide paid counsel to aliens in every immigration case.”

Aliens seeking asylum must first appear before an asylum officer, then an immigration judge. If they appeal a judge’s decision, their petition will go before the Board of Immigration Appeals and then reach the federal court. This process of numerous steps is another reason that Ries is concerned that taxpayers will be stuck with an “astronomical” bill.


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts