Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Vyuvarax]

I disagree. It is 100% related to cognitive and consciousness. Isn't the defendant's whole argument that they wouldn't have consented if they weren't blackout drunk - ie, if they made a conscious decision? The excuse of being blackout drunk is essentially the same as being unconscious. Just to clarify:

She consents numerous times.
Begins to partake in kissing.
Claims to blackout at some point between kissing and having sex.
Claims this is rape.

Actually the defendant would be the male in this case. If she brings a civil case as a tort she'd be the plaintiff, or victim in a state or federal case.

Also, her account does not say she ever consented or partook in kissing the defendant. She can also not legally consent while intoxicated.

- - - Updated - - -

I fucking linked you a MD brochure that says the exact fucking opposite. People in a black-out frequently exhibit no outward signs that anything is out of the ordinary. The only way to test if someone is blacking out is to test their short-term memory. Being drunk is not equivalent to being significantly impaired.

The brochure is for assessing whether someone who is drunk is blacked out. It makes no suggestion whatsoever that a blacked out person will act sober. It instead assumes and makes mention of the fact that they will exhibit the symptoms of being drunk.

[Chrysia]

The brochure is for assessing whether someone who is drunk is blacked out. It makes no suggestion whatsoever that a blacked out person will act sober. It instead assumes and makes mention of the fact that they will exhibit the symptoms of being drunk.

Drunk is not significantly impaired.

[Mistame]

The only person who is trying to imply that substantially impaired = unconscious anywhere, in this forum or in a court of law, is you.

I never made such a claim. It's telling that after 20+ pages, you still don't understand what "substantially impaired" means.

Black-out drunk is slang for the medical term 'blackout.' His definition is also correct as a medical 'blackout' is either a loss of consciousness or memory. Your term isn't used in court.

The very definition you posted and bolded specifically states that it occurs while conscious. You cannot apply two separate and conflicting definitions to a term in the same context. That's not how words, or their definitions, work. Black-out drunk is nothing more than drug-induced amnesia and has nothing to do with consciousness or one's ability to function. And if courts are using "black-out drunk" as unconscious, then they're doing it wrong.

No medical professional would agree with you, mostly because the court looks for whether she was drunk while you're clinging to this phony notion that the statute needs to determine whether she had blacked out. The simple fact that she was obviously drunk and could not function normally from being impaired is plenty to determine she was incapable of giving consent.

Her being "drunk" is irrelevant as, unless substantially impaired (which is way beyond black-out drunk), consent is valid. And what "simple fact" has been demonstrated that she could not function normally? There is none. In fact, that she had a conversation with her friend and walked to her car conflicts with that presumption.

Little tip: If you're going to continue to grasp at straws to make your point, it's probably a good idea to make sure they actually exist.

I disagree. It is 100% related to cognitive and consciousness.

You're welcome to disagree, but you'd be wrong. It's not related to either. "Black-out drunk" is nothing more than alcohol-induced amnesia.

That's why, as I said, medical professionals have testified in court that its extremely evident before someone blacks out in any capacity that they are intoxicated. Even your little blackout handbook makes it evident that the person will still exhibit signs of being drunk.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Yes, a drunk person will appear to be drunk prior to, during and after an episode of alcohol-indused amnesia. That's how that works. That state does not indicate "substantial impairment".

She can also not legally consent while intoxicated.

And, we're right back where we started. A person absolutely can consent while intoxicated. If you, or anyone else, actually believes this, you haven't the mental capacity to be involved in rational discourse.

[Rooflesstoofless]

So if you drink and drive are you not responsible for your actions?

Regretting your choices after the fact doesn't equate to rape and making someone else pay for it doesn't absolve your actions.

Yeah its called having a good time.
Going out and drinking more often leads to fucking than posting on MMO-champ.

But going out drinking and then shitposting on MMO-C is the bestest.

Source: used to drink.

[Vyuvarax]

Drunk is not significantly impaired.

FFS, drunk is the same as intoxicated, which the law views as significantly impaired. Get a grip on reality, dude.

[Chrysia]

FFS, drunk is the same as intoxicated, which the law views as significantly impaired. Get a grip on reality, dude.

No, no it isn't. "Intoxicated" doesn't even have a single legal definition.

[Shadowferal]

You can have a drink or two without being impaired.
But yeah...if you're drunk then you're done. (impaired)

[Vyuvarax]

I never made such a claim. It's telling that after 20+ pages, you still don't understand what "substantially impaired" means.

Substantially impaired is a state brought on by intoxication in the statute's context. Your silly rambling doesn't change that

The very definition you posted and bolded specifically states that it occurs while conscious. You cannot apply two separate and conflicting definitions to a term in the same context. That's not how words, or their definitions, work. Black-out drunk is nothing more than drug-induced amnesia and has nothing to do with consciousness or one's ability to function. And if courts are using "black-out drunk" as unconscious, then they're doing it wrong.

No court, as I said, says 'black-out drunk' because its slang for the medical term 'blackout,' which is either loss of consciousness or memory. My full definition said as much if you'd bother to read.

Her being "drunk" is irrelevant as, unless substantially impaired (which is way beyond black-out drunk), consent is valid. And what "simple fact" has been demonstrated that she could not function normally? There is none. In fact, that she had a conversation with her friend and walked to her car conflicts with that presumption.

Little tip: If you're going to continue to grasp at straws to make your point, it's probably a good idea to make sure they actually exist.



You're welcome to disagree, but you'd be wrong. It's not related to either. "Black-out drunk" is nothing more than alcohol-induced amnesia.

The court views intoxicated, or drunk, as substantially impaired. How many times you say otherwise never changes that.

[Chrysia]

Substantially impaired is a state brought on by intoxication in the statute's context. Your silly rambling doesn't change that

But that doesn't mean every level of intoxication qualifies as substantially impaired.

[Vyuvarax]

No, no it isn't. "Intoxicated" doesn't even have a single legal definition.

Whether or not someone is intoxicated is determined by the facts of the case. She blacked out from alcohol consumption. The facts of the case are she was drunk.

Intoxication is directly connected to causing significant impairment in the statute. Again, get a grip.

- - - Updated - - -

But that doesn't mean every level of intoxication qualifies as substantially impaired.

Yes, actually, it does.

[Mistame]

Substantially impaired is a state brought on by intoxication in the statute's context. Your silly rambling doesn't change that

"Substantially impaired" is state of intoxication in which one is unable to respond or react effectively to their environment.

No court, as I said, says 'black-out drunk' because its slang for the medical term 'blackout,' which is either loss of consciousness or memory. My full definition said as much if you'd bother to read.

No, it's not. It's a slang for alcohol-induced amnesia and occurs while the person is conscious.

The court views intoxicated, or drunk, as substantially impaired. How many times you say otherwise never changes that.

No, they don't. Again "substantially impaired" refers specifically to an state of intoxication in which one is not capable of responding or reacting to their environment. Signs of this state are slurred speech, stumbling, etc. Merely being intoxicated is not inherently "substantially impaired" and your insistence that it is just shows how little you actually know about it.

Yes, actually, it does.

No, it actually doesn't. Get a grip. Also, learn to read.

[dvaz]

Stopped at "Rape Culture".

[Shinzai]

FFS, drunk is the same as intoxicated, which the law views as significantly impaired. Get a grip on reality, dude.

Actually, in Canadian laws, unless they're incapacitated, you literally can consent.

Supreme Court partial interpretation of “consent”

"The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador jury ruled in favour of a defense that added to the interpretation of the consent laws.[98] The defenses stated and the Jury was reminded by Justice Valerie Marshall:[99]

because a complainant is drunk does not diminish their capacity to consent.
because a complainant cannot remember if they gave consent does not mean they could not have consented.[100]

The coined phrase regarding this defense was "Moral vs. legal consent" [101]"

[Mistame]

Actually, in Canadian laws, unless they're incapacitated, you literally can consent.

Supreme Court partial interpretation of “consent”

"The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador jury ruled in favour of a defense that added to the interpretation of the consent laws.[98] The defenses stated and the Jury was reminded by Justice Valerie Marshall:[99]

because a complainant is drunk does not diminish their capacity to consent.
because a complainant cannot remember if they gave consent does not mean they could not have consented.[100]

The coined phrase regarding this defense was "Moral vs. legal consent" [101]"

You're wasting your time. Only he knows everything, regardless of how often it's been explained and he's been proven wrong.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf..Justice Valerie Marshall...that was from the Snelgrove case back in February...Needless to say, most saw the "not guilty" verdict as an outrage.
And it's being appealed: Justice erred on consent instructions: Crown

The Crown argues that Justice Valerie Marshall erred "by failing to properly instruct the jury on the meaning of consent," and also erred in her interpretation of the Criminal Code.
The Crown feels that Marshall ought to have instructed the jury that there could be no consent in which "the accused induces the complainant to engage in the [sexual] activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority."
Marshall had ruled that there was no inducement by Snelgrove, who had not been charged with breach of trust, and would not give that instruction to the jury.
During the trial, there was no mention made of Snelgrove inducing her to have sex.

[Chrysia]

Hmf..Justice Valerie Marshall...that was from the Snelgrove case back in February...Needless to say, most saw the "not guilty" verdict as an outrage.
And it's being appealed: Justice erred on consent instructions: Crown

The Crown argues that Justice Valerie Marshall erred "by failing to properly instruct the jury on the meaning of consent," and also erred in her interpretation of the Criminal Code.
The Crown feels that Marshall ought to have instructed the jury that there could be no consent in which "the accused induces the complainant to engage in the [sexual] activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority."
Marshall had ruled that there was no inducement by Snelgrove, who had not been charged with breach of trust, and would not give that instruction to the jury.
During the trial, there was no mention made of Snelgrove inducing her to have sex.

That doesn't sound like an argument that you can't consent when drunk, rather there was an entirely different avenue by which the appeals court thinks consent may have been invalid: that being that he held a position of authority over her.

[Shadowferal]

I was reminded of the "upskirting" thing in Massachusetts, and when that guy was found "not guilty" because of what the law said...and then the outrage that came, and the changes in the state law which occurred in what had to be a record time for a state congress to make a bill, get it passed, and to the governor's desk in three days I think.

[buck008]

all in all, if she doesn't want to have drunken sex like this then she should not consent to drunken sex like this.

I don't believe that at all. Alcohol impairs your judgement, but it doesn't absolve one of guilt. If a bank robber is drunk when he robs the bank, he is still guilty. If she would have hopped on him while he was impaired, he would have every right to also claim assault. One can't say, however, that a person shouldn't get drunk if they didn't want to have drunken sex.

In a more general sense, many people indicated that black out drunk doesn't indicate a lack of awareness. I don't know if you thought I meant she was passed or was otherwise unresponsive, but I did not. Generally speaking, blackouts happen when one consumes large amounts of alcohol in a short time or during an extended period of regular drinking. This isn't a thing that happens from a drink here or there. Maybe a seasoned alcoholic would function normally, not most of us.

[Deleted]

I don't believe that at all. Alcohol impairs your judgement, but it doesn't absolve one of guilt. If a bank robber is drunk when he robs the bank, he is still guilty. If she would have hopped on him while he was impaired, he would have every right to also claim assault. One can't say, however, that a person shouldn't get drunk if they didn't want to have drunken sex.

In a more general sense, many people indicated that black out drunk doesn't indicate a lack of awareness. I don't know if you thought I meant she was passed or was otherwise unresponsive, but I did not. Generally speaking, blackouts happen when one consumes large amounts of alcohol in a short time or during an extended period of regular drinking. This isn't a thing that happens from a drink here or there. Maybe a seasoned alcoholic would function normally, not most of us.

Yea, if a bank robber robs a bank while drunk he is still guilty, just like, when you consent to sex while drunk you still have consented.

It has been explained numerous times in this thread that blackouts happen when you are still conscious and that having a blackout doesn't mean that you can not consent to sex.

[Chrysia]

I don't believe that at all. Alcohol impairs your judgement, but it doesn't absolve one of guilt. If a bank robber is drunk when he robs the bank, he is still guilty. If she would have hopped on him while he was impaired, he would have every right to also claim assault. One can't say, however, that a person shouldn't get drunk if they didn't want to have drunken sex.

In a more general sense, many people indicated that black out drunk doesn't indicate a lack of awareness. I don't know if you thought I meant she was passed or was otherwise unresponsive, but I did not. Generally speaking, blackouts happen when one consumes large amounts of alcohol in a short time or during an extended period of regular drinking. This isn't a thing that happens from a drink here or there. Maybe a seasoned alcoholic would function normally, not most of us.

Black outs don't occur at a specific point in alcohol consumption. I've been far more intoxicated than i was during both my black out episodes without blacking out.