Your reading comprehension is really fucked up. Nowhere did I state I find it OK that the guy is free (so far). I was merely explaining to you, what you took out of the article and what was the reason for him to be spoken unguilty was just plain wrong. You misunderstood the article, the reason for the sentencing. And now here you are, again not understanding what I wrote.

And no, the German law needing the intend of rape to charge someone guilty for rape is not the reason why people here are so disgusted and you know it.

If there is a preponderance of evidence indicating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was forced to have sex without giving consent, a rape has taken place. Period. End of story.

That is not the reality in Germany. To speak someone guilty for rape here there needs to be prove or example of intend. Of course and obviously it's not enough for the criminal to claim he was unguilty. As it did not in this case. Because as I carefully explained to you that was not the point. The victim, the only person other than the rapists who knew what was going on, said it was possible that her actions might have been misunderstood by the guy as giving consent. This tied the judges hands. Again, and very small words for you: I not say I like.

My response to you was because you wrote absolute bullshit with a bullshit interpretation of the article and bullshit conclusions you took from it.