Guilty verdict in "he said she said" case changes the landscape of Criminal Justice

[Canpinter]

That isn't numerically defined in Canadian law. But the two of them closed down a bar, and that part of the story is unchallenged, so I doubt it's relevant here.

so you have no legal base for defining when someone is to drunk to consent?

[Dadwen]

In my mind, having both :

"Drunk driving is your choice and is criminal because you cannot be excused of your actions for being drunk"

and

"You cannot be held responsible for accepting sex when drunk"

Cannot coexist in the same set of laws. Witch is it ? Are we in control or are we not when we are drunk ? (hint: we totally are in control of our actions and decisions)
I am of course not talking about passed out. This is something else entirely.

Also part of the problem with that idea is I know some people that can be drunk off their ass and it's really not noticeable. (Friend of mine before his wedding we took him out and we were walking to a comedy club and with no slur or issue walking he calmly says I think I'm fairly trashed (he did have quite a bit) but really no outside signs he was trashed *till the next morning).

[TheMediator]

In my mind, having both :

"Drunk driving is your choice and is criminal because you cannot be excused of your actions for being drunk"

and

"You cannot be held responsible for accepting sex when drunk"

Cannot coexist in the same set of laws. Witch is it ? Are we in control or are we not when we are drunk ? (hint: we totally are in control of our actions and decisions)
I am of course not talking about passed out. This is something else entirely.

Stop trying to logic-rape us, jeez. You can't use solid logic to point out a paradox or hypocrisy, that's called LOGIC-RAPE you cis-privledge shitlord.

[tehealadin]

Being both here are under the influence who can say who was the initiator, if they are to drunk to give or realizes consent, seems they would be to drunk to realize who initiated it, seems like a bad judge or bad legal setup.

The man obviously initiated it. Because heterosexual females don't exist, female heterosexuality doesn't exist (I don't know if it is allowed to exist if interracial and the man isn't white, not sure how the rules work), it is a scam by the patriarchy, using their superior male minds to plant the notion of desire into unsuspecting, poor defenseless women, so that they can get their end away. Men always want it, all of the time, so men can never be the victim. How dare you suggest that men and women be held to the same standards. They are just women.

Of course, someone will essentially say this, but in such a manner as to hide their inherent sexism.

[Breccia]

so you have no legal base for defining when someone is to drunk to consent?

a) The judge, or jury, does. That's the part that matters. In this case, closing down a bar is almost certainly past any 0.08 or whatever it would have been defined as, anyhow.
b) If you're at the point where you're wondering if an action you're about to take is just barely over the legal line or not, maybe "no" should be your default course of action.

[Canpinter]

a) The judge, or jury, does. That's the part that matters. In this case, closing down a bar is almost certainly past any 0.08 or whatever it would have been defined as, anyhow.

how the fuck would closing a bar make you drunk? dose the alcohol just enter your body thru osmosis?

[Breccia]

In my mind, having both :

"Drunk driving is your choice and is criminal because you cannot be excused of your actions for being drunk"

and

"You cannot be held responsible for accepting sex when drunk"

Cannot coexist in the same set of laws.

Problem is, yes they can.
a) Being too drunk to recognize your partner is drunk, is not a legal excuse for raping your partner.
b) Nobody ever blames the car in a drunk driving case.

The law was probably written to prevent people who rape their drunk partners from using "they were drunk and gave consent" as a get-out-of-jail free card. You might argue this case goes too far. I'd actually agree with that. But problem is, the law's very specific, and the man, under oath, admitted he broke it as it is written. Should it be changed? Maybe. It does sound a lot like "if your partner is drunk, back the fuck off" in its existing form. But until then, the judge's hands are legally tied.

- - - Updated - - -

how the fuck would closing a bar make you drunk? dose the alcohol just enter your body thru osmosis?

No. Staying at the bar and drinking until the bar closes, the version of "closing a bar" I thought applied in this case, makes you drunk.

[Canpinter]

Problem is, yes they can.
a) Being too drunk to recognize your partner is drunk, is not a legal excuse for raping your partner.
b) Nobody ever blames the car in a drunk driving case.

The law was probably written to prevent people who rape their drunk partners from using "they were drunk and gave consent" as a get-out-of-jail free card. You might argue this case goes too far. I'd actually agree with that. But problem is, the law's very specific, and the man, under oath, admitted he broke it as it is written. Should it be changed? Maybe. It does sound a lot like "if your partner is drunk, back the fuck off" in its existing form. But until then, the judge's hands are legally tied.

- - - Updated - - -



No. Staying at the bar and drinking until the bar closes, the version of "closing a bar" I thought applied in this case, makes you drunk.

ok not a phrased used here in the states i guess, im still wondering tho what the bases for defining when someone is to drunk for consent is tho?

[Konteil]

so basically what we have here is now every one night stand or jilted lover has the ability to say rape and have them incarcerated for not staying with them after sex? women with that mentality desereve to be one night stands. there is just someting wrong with that thought process. baiscallw its saying that "one night of sex with me is worth 10 years of your life at my behest....one way or anther. " if a man thought his cock was worth that kind of commitment one way or another from a woman he would be laughed into a coffin. pretty BS if you ask me.

[Theodarzna]

i always find how feminists change the definition of drunk at the drop of a hat interesting. if they say "drunk women cant consent" and are asked what they mean they will say people so drunk they are passed out which makes sense. But as soon as its put into law the definition switches to "had a drink or two just enough to lower inhibitions a bit" its an elastic word they want to be able to use at their discretion.

In the end Feminism today is taking advantage of societies general angst over the sexually libertine appetites of our daughters, sisters and sometimes even mothers. I am sure if I say had a still living father he might have worried over what sort of sex life I'd have at university. When it comes to sex, they cringe at the appetites of your average woman as much as the old foogies might, and they have found a way to make sex perilous for the other half of the equation.

With alcohol its the same thing, its a vector of attack.

[tehealadin]

In the end Feminism today is taking advantage of societies general angst over the sexually libertine appetites of our daughters, sisters and sometimes even mothers. I am sure if I say had a still living father he might have worried over what sort of sex life I'd have at university. When it comes to sex, they cringe at the appetites of your average woman as much as the old foogies might, and they have found a way to make sex perilous for the other half of the equation.

With alcohol its the same thing, its a vector of attack.

No no no no. Don't you get it? Women don't want to fuck men (white men at least, not sure on the rules for non white men), and need to be protected from male mind tricks (apparently the female mind is just too weak), designed to get them to have sex.

[Kraenen]

No no no no. Don't you get it? Women don't want to fuck men (white men at least, not sure on the rules for non white men), and need to be protected from male mind tricks (apparently the female mind is just too weak), designed to get them to have sex.

what? women generally prefer white men when hooking up and when no one's watching (look up "Dataclysm")

[Theodarzna]

No no no no. Don't you get it? Women don't want to fuck men (white men at least, not sure on the rules for non white men), and need to be protected from male mind tricks (apparently the female mind is just too weak), designed to get them to have sex.

This is truer than you think, in the sense of that is how its coached. Having learned they can't just blanket hate ALL men they creatively have decided only White Men are Men, everyone else isn't totally MEN!

This is somewhat glaring in the OCR Title XI training material that anyone working for or attending college must do. The perpetrators of bad acts are always white, male, geeky, and of course straight.

In a way its a way to hate on the Fratboys who never invited them to parties.

[Video Games]

Well im just glad you got your adorable avatar back.

[Canpinter]

This is truer than you think, in the sense of that is how its coached. Having learned they can't just blanket hate ALL men they creatively have decided only White Men are Men, everyone else isn't totally MEN!

This is somewhat glaring in the OCR Title XI training material that anyone working for or attending college must do. The perpetrators of bad acts are always white, male, geeky, and of course straight.

In a way its a way to hate on the Fratboys who never invited them to parties.

just remember a black man isn't a man hes black

[Kraenen]

You missed the /s in that post, I guess.

yeah my bad

[enragedgorilla]

Not my Justice system, Do not care.
Ours has plenty of WTF cases, I do not need to worry about my neighbor to the north.
Enjoy your "superior" system.

[Mafic]

Haha Canada is going down the tubes.

[tithian]

Women and men are equals when they are different? How does that work? :/

Every single person on the planet is different, and yet they are considered equal (in the typical modern western society, at least). This includes race, gender and ethnicity.

Do you even have some basic cognitive skills, or do you just exist in a permanent daze?

[Theodarzna]

That's not really a solution.

To turn a blind eye to a situation
is actually never the solution.
If it was, you'd still be in balls and chains chipping away stones or whatever in some remote mine shaft, for your overlord and master.

There is some truth in what advanta said.
Is there something like extreme feminism? Most definitely there is.
But that does not
1. invalidate the equality progress still needed.
2. reflect the reality in these forums, and likely every other forum too. There's thread after thread after thread, which causes a wrong picture. It's almost as if militant feminism is ever present every second of our daily lives. When in fact, it's nowhere to be seen other than sporadically in a spot here, and a spot there.

So yeah, conclusive, if we really have a need to chatter about every little or not so little case, lets at least be fair and honest. Let's not discriminate on the pro's and con's.
Let's allow all people to express their opinions. As long as they aren't violating any rules of decency and discussion, there shouldn't be a problem.
Or am I wrong here?

There is little that is needed, what advanta bitches about is people ultimately questioning such a narrative.

The problem is expressing any opinion other than undying praises for anything that is the current feminist flavor of the month is restricted to non-existent on most platforms and in the public. You can't voice criticism in public, or even in most web spaces.

There are a lot of threads purely because there are so few places to actually openly speak about it.