Page 40 of 47 FirstFirst ...
30
38
39
40
41
42
... LastLast
  1. #781
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    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.
    So she blacked out prior to having sex, so he had to strip her and actively rape her in her sleep then? Because that doesn't sound like the angle they're taking. To quote the article; " she blacked out between when the friend kissed her – and when she woke up to find him having sex with her." that's pretty damn vague. Somewhere between kissing and sex. It doesn't clarify anything and as I said, it's unverifiable.

  2. #782
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    Can you specifically cite that, because I can't find anything that states this.
    Under definition of sexual act as defined by the statute I gave you. Must not look very hard.

    (1) Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means—
    (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
    (B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    There's no indication that he thought, at the time, that something was off. Asking for consent repeatedly is not, in itself, an indication of a belief that something is off, as most sexual conduct manuals specifically instruct you to reaffirm consent if any part of the sexual encounter changes.

    He certainly, in hindsight, after becoming sober, suspected that perhaps she was drunker than he thought at the time, but there's no evidence that that was true during the actual act.
    He doesn't need to be able to identify whether she could give consent in the moment to be guilty. For a general intent crime, you just have to show his reckless behavior caused the crime which he does by becoming intoxicated. Same bar that determines a DUI.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    So she blacked out prior to having sex, so he had to strip her and actively rape her in her sleep then? Because that doesn't sound like the angle they're taking. To quote the article; " she blacked out between when the friend kissed her – and when she woke up to find him having sex with her." that's pretty damn vague. Somewhere between kissing and sex. It doesn't clarify anything and as I said, it's unverifiable.
    Your post has no claim to it. No idea what point you're trying to make.
    Last edited by Vyuvarax; 2017-07-27 at 04:30 PM.

  3. #783
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Anastacy View Post
    Wait, so we want men to continually ask for consent for each time a sexual act escalates, but we want to also use that against him as proof he was unsure that what he was doing was appropriate?

    Dafuq.
    Yep. How else will the "white-knights" (ie "cunts") of the world show that all men are rapists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Under definition of sexual act as defined by the statute I gave you. Must not look very hard.

    (1) Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means—
    (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
    (B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
    You do understand that this definition is conflict with your claim, right? It does not mention anything about "instigation" or instigation being a one-person thing. In fact, if she gave him a BJ prior to sex, she "raped" him.
    Last edited by Mistame; 2017-07-27 at 04:48 PM.

  4. #784
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Under definition of sexual act as defined by the statute I gave you. Must not look very hard.

    (1) Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means—
    (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
    (B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
    What part of this supports your claim that instigation is necessarily always unilateral in all instances of sex acts according to the law?

    He doesn't need to be able to identify whether she could give consent in the moment to be guilty. For a general intent crime, you just have to show his reckless behavior caused the crime which he does by becoming intoxicated. Same bar that determines a DUI.
    Your own link says that he had to reasonably know at the time that her consent was invalid. That must be demonstrated for sexual assault to occur.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  5. #785
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    You do understand that this definition is conflict with your claim, right? It does not mention anything about "instigation" or instigation being a one-person thing. In fact, if she gave him a BJ prior to sex, she "raped" him.
    All criminal charges for general-intent crimes are handled individually. That's common legal knowledge. There are very few crimes that look at groups of people and they're all well outside general-intent.

    Instigation is a court room term used to identify who acted. I didn't at any point claim it was part of the statute.

  6. #786
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    All criminal charges for general-intent crimes are handled individually. That's common legal knowledge. There are very few crimes that look at groups of people and they're all well outside general-intent.

    Instigation is a court room term used to identify who acted. I didn't at any point claim it was part of the statute.
    You fucking just did, when I asked you to substantiate the claim that instigation of a sexual act is necessarily unilateral in the eyes of the law.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  7. #787
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    What part of this supports your claim that instigation is necessarily always unilateral in all instances of sex acts according to the law?
    Nearly all charges are evaluated on an individual basis. Certainly all general-intent crimes are. The statute's definition simply notes that the defendant has to act against another. The law doesn't bother to layout what you do if neither party causes penetration because it's a silly question.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    Your own link says that he had to reasonably know at the time that her consent was invalid. That must be demonstrated for sexual assault to occur.
    Had he been sober then he'd have been able to reasonably know. But his choice to become intoxicated waives that protection as his behavior is viewed as reckless and does not excuse from acting unlawfully.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    You fucking just did, when I asked you to substantiate the claim that instigation of a sexual act is necessarily unilateral in the eyes of the law.
    All general-intent charges are made on an individual basis. Your question is silly.

  8. #788
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Had he been sober then he'd have been able to reasonably know. But his choice to become intoxicated waives that protection as his behavior is viewed as reckless and does not excuse from acting unlawfully.
    You're really, really going to have to substantiate this, especially since not all rape cases are tried on the federal level, and there are multiple states that have degrees of rape/sexual assault specifically to handle cases such as this one.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  9. #789
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    You're really, really going to have to substantiate this, especially since not all rape cases are tried on the federal level, and there are multiple states that have degrees of rape/sexual assault specifically to handle cases such as this one.
    If you're talking about degrees of rape/sexual assault you're waiving the notion that the defendant is not guilty.The degree of rape/sexual assault determines sentencing. That's fine with me, so yeah, sentencing obviously varies by state.

    If you need to read more about general-intent crimes to understand them, that's on you.

  10. #790
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    If you're talking about degrees of rape/sexual assault you're waiving the notion that the defendant is not guilty.The degree of rape/sexual assault determines sentencing. That's fine with me, so yeah, sentencing obviously varies by state.

    If you need to read more about general-intent crimes to understand them, that's on you.
    No, not just sentencing, the entire way rape is handled under the law. The defendant is, by my reading of the federal statute, not guilty based on the plain English of the federal statute. He may be guilty of a different sexual offense under the sex crimes laws of his state because they aren't uniform across the US.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  11. #791
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    No, not just sentencing, the entire way rape is handled under the law. The defendant is, by my reading of the federal statute, not guilty based on the plain English of the federal statute. He may be guilty of a different sexual offense under the sex crimes laws of his state because they aren't uniform across the US.
    Your reasons vary wildly for why you think the defendant would be found not guilty so you'll have to be more specific.

  12. #792
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    Your reasons vary wildly for why you think the defendant would be found not guilty so you'll have to be more specific.
    I think he would not be found guilty if charged in federal court, based on the fact that it cannot be reasonably demonstrated that he knew she was impaired, based on his own impairment. He won't be charged in federal court, though. Also, this is apparently in Ontario, so US law isn't applicable at all.

    Sexual assault law is actually uniform across Canada, the word rape having been expunged from Canadian law, and their there's no clear legal boundary for drunken consent.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  13. #793
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Stop lying. The majority of this thread has been about the concept of consent in general. You know that and have argued with me about it.

    I get you won't admit you've been wrong about consent, alcohol, the law, etc. but don't be so pathetic that you're going to lie when we can ll red the truth right here.
    As has been pointed out by others, stop derailing the thread with your useless assertions, you have not been correct now or ever. You where wrong about consent or alcohol nor the law, and this thread is about this case no matter how much you dislike it.

  14. #794
    Quote Originally Posted by MeHMeH View Post
    As has been pointed out by others, stop derailing the thread with your useless assertions, you have not been correct now or ever. You where wrong about consent or alcohol nor the law, and this thread is about this case no matter how much you dislike it.
    Yes I was correct.

    You just can't stop lying. Why is that?

    Do you need to get people drunk for them to have sex?

  15. #795
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Yes I was correct.

    You just can't stop lying. Why is that?

    Do you need to get people drunk for them to have sex?
    yes he does lol

  16. #796
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    I think he would not be found guilty if charged in federal court, based on the fact that it cannot be reasonably demonstrated that he knew she was impaired, based on his own impairment. He won't be charged in federal court, though. Also, this is apparently in Ontario, so US law isn't applicable at all.
    A) The entire thread is using this case to discuss rape in the US so it makes more sense to talk US law.
    B) As has been explained to you before, no crime you committed at either the state or federal level is dismissed because you were voluntarily intoxicated. You are responsible for all crimes you commit while intoxicated. The fact that you allowed yourself to become impaired to the point that you could not follow the law - as in tell if the other party was too intoxicated to give consent - is not a valid legal defense. Ever. Why you continue to use this as your claim can only be described as willful ignorance at this point.

  17. #797
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Yes I was correct.

    You just can't stop lying. Why is that?

    Do you need to get people drunk for them to have sex?
    No you not understanding the Canadian law doesn't mean that im wrong. http://www.sexassault.ca/criminalprocess.htm

    Another issue is whether the accused reasonably believed that the victim consented to the sexual act.
    And you really should not project your practices on other people.

  18. #798
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    A) The entire thread is using this case to discuss rape in the US so it makes more sense to talk US law.
    B) As has been explained to you before, no crime you committed at either the state or federal level is dismissed because you were voluntarily intoxicated. You are responsible for all crimes you commit while intoxicated. The fact that you allowed yourself to become impaired to the point that you could not follow the law - as in tell if the other party was too intoxicated to give consent - is not a valid legal defense. Ever. Why you continue to use this as your claim can only be described as willful ignorance at this point.
    Yes, it is. There are crimes you cannot commit while intoxicated.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  19. #799
    Quote Originally Posted by MeHMeH View Post
    No you not understanding the Canadian law doesn't mean that im wrong. http://www.sexassault.ca/criminalprocess.htm



    And you really should not project your practices on other people.
    Seriously? You really have a hard time understanding words. Consent while intoxicated is absolutely not guaranteed and you're acting as if it is, when your own link explains it's not.

  20. #800
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyuvarax View Post
    A) The entire thread is using this case to discuss rape in the US so it makes more sense to talk US law.
    B) As has been explained to you before, no crime you committed at either the state or federal level is dismissed because you were voluntarily intoxicated. You are responsible for all crimes you commit while intoxicated. The fact that you allowed yourself to become impaired to the point that you could not follow the law - as in tell if the other party was too intoxicated to give consent - is not a valid legal defense. Ever. Why you continue to use this as your claim can only be described as willful ignorance at this point.
    A) That is simply not true, this thread is about a rape case in Canada and you have been trying to apply US law to it and claiming everyone is wrong. This isn't about the US, so stop using it as some sort of golden rule.
    B) And as it has been explained to you before that being intoxicated will be taken into account by the judge, from both sides. So the judge will take in account that the "victim" was drunk and would their inhibitions inhibited and the judge will take in account that the accused was drunk and might not pick up on subtle differences between drunk and too impaired to give consent.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Seriously? You really have a hard time understanding words. Consent while intoxicated is absolutely not guaranteed and you're acting as if it is, when your own link explains it's not.
    You should really take your pills, it might help. Because you are seeing things that are not there again, i have not claimed that consent while intoxicated is guaranteed, it is ludicrous and nothing more then one of your thinly veiled strawmans.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •