Isn't this just a case of disregarding all the prior consent, then claiming she blacked out? Given that she was able to converse and consent numerous times prior to the act, I some how doubt the guy just humped her limp, unconscious body, if that's the claim to be believed.
The point is there is no way to prove who 'did or didn't act', as either party can just randomly claim to have 'blacked out' and attempt to use that as an infallible argument.
Why is it that almost all the women in these cases use the claim of blacking out mid coitus? Is this just the easy, go-to defence at the moment for an open-shut case?
“Survivors deserve better,” wrote Denis. “They need to know that it is never their fault, regardless if they’ve intentionally consumed alcohol, this does not make them responsible for the assault.”
She is not responsible for drinking herself to unconsciousness? Great lesson there Denis, here's your darwin award.
For one thing she doesn't claim to have blacked out while having sex. That's a projection on your part. She blacked out beforehand.
More importantly, if a person is intoxicated to the point of impairment they're not legally considered capable of granting consent. Doesn't matter if she said yes a hundred times and twerked like no tomorrow in front of him. You don't instigate intercourse on a party that is impaired. You will be without legal recourse if you do.
Last edited by Vyuvarax; 2017-07-27 at 11:45 AM.
Your substance argument is pointless. The thing you're choosing to cling to has no bearing in this argument. It doesn't matter how these things effect your judgement, it just matters that they do.
You don't understand the word consent. You cannot consent if you're severely hindered by substances, by definition. All your BS doesn't change that simple fact. Argue it, cry, stomp your feet....it doesn't matter. Consent can only be given if the person is in their right mind.
Fact is that she wasn't severely impaired enough to not be able to consent, this is what a police investigation concluded. None of your BS changes this simple fact, you are wrong. This guy wasn't charged, it is only you and your zealot companions that somehow think that she was raped. None of your empty bullshit arguments can change this simple fact.
But we didn't. We didn't agree to sex before getting drunk. We both initiated sex after getting drunk.
- - - Updated - - -
"The officers mishandled the case" is not equivalent to "the officers were wrong about the facts." You can come to the correct conclusion even if you failed to follow proper procedure.
3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.
Just for quick clarification, the person who initiated intercourse is the person who inserted genitals into either themselves or the other party. This is important to keep straight because the statute is looking at insertion as criminal offense if the party inserting does not have consent.
In certain kinds of prior relationships, the court takes into account mitigating factors like past experience. However, if you were the one doing the instigating and your gf was too drunk to consent, she would be within her rights to press charges. It's unlikely she would win, but the statute would be on her side.
You can, but an officer's conclusion, true or false, isn't permissible in court if they failed to uphold police procedure.
I'm sorry but this is a whole lot of bullshit. Nobody is too drunk to consent.
I get drunk all the time but I don't have casual sex with random strangers. If someone does, it's because they are like that even without the alcohol. Alcohol only magnifies the behaviour, it doesn't magically change your morals. So don't blame the alcohol for your own behaviour and choices.
But it's always easy to blame something other than yourself for behaviour you regret. And that's why we're here I guess.
Your view doesn't square with the law on the issue, so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Also your basic premise here - that women who are raped are asking for it - is pretty gross.
- - - Updated - - -
Depends on who inserted what, i.e. who committed the criminal act. The evidence here suggests it was the male.