"She lead the way" USC student cleared of rape

[McTroll]

Within context its not absurd as the discussion was about a particular type of action and related actions, i.e. low-level functioning, and saying that determines competence, which is rape apologist 101. Courts do not view someone being able to walk or lead someone somewhere as evidence of competence. Rape apologists, however, do.

What about that is absurd is difficult to see within context.

That is my point exactly. Within the proper context, I agree. Except you did not specify that and you still put all of it under the rape apologist 101 umbrella originally. That was what I was pointing out, and this is what you're remaining purposefully oblivious to.

[Zython]

When did I say that or anything even remotely close to that?

These suggestions work great for interpersonal relationships but none of what you are saying could apply in a legal sense.

Scenario: Woman says a man raped her, man said woman said yes.

We are back to exactly where we started.

Funny thing about the internet? You can go back and see what people said in the past. It's all recorded.

[Elba]

Let's be honest. Trump coulda raped a woman on tape and at least 20% of the country would still have voted for him.

[Zython]

Wow, that seems like a lot of damning evidence.

So why hasn't he been charged exactly?

Because he has the backing of the entire fucking country?

[McTroll]

Let's be honest. Trump coulda raped a woman on tape and at least 20% of the country would still have voted for him.

Considering the country he runs, 20% is too little of a number.

[Katchii]

Gentlemen, and I use the term loosely, this isn't a tough nut to crack.

If a woman is under the influence, she cannot consent.

If she is unknown to you, you would be esp. foolish to move forward to sex.

Judge in this case seems to think he's god. His opinions about video footage seems to fly in the face of the uncontroverted assertion that the woman was drunk and could not therefore consent. Behaving inappropriately while drunk is fairly common and doesn't somehow give her the ability to grant consent if a drunk woman cannot consent.

Yet again, I don't understand social norms better post on MMO-Champ...

How drunk is too drunk? How is someone to judge? What is the criteria that a person needs to meet in order to be able to consent? How is someone else supposed to determine whether someone else meets those criteria? How is a judge or jury supposed to accurately determine that someone did or did not meet those criteria after the fact when there's no evidence either way?

This is the whole crux of your argument. How is someone in that situation, who is interacting with that person supposed to determine whether the consent they receive is ACTUALLY consent or it's really not because the person giving it is now doesn't meet some ambiguous criteria that's nearly impossible to determine.

I can kind of understand where you're coming from, but it's not even close to being as crystal clear as you seem to think it is.

Also, does this also apply to men? Because your statements seem to be focused entirely on a WOMAN being unable to give consent when she's drunk.

[Vyuvarax]

That is my point exactly. Within the proper context, I agree. Except you did not specify that and you still put all of it under the rape apologist 101 umbrella originally. That was what I was pointing out, and this is what you're remaining purposefully oblivious to.

It was within the proper context if you had read the subsequent post. That's not on me. That's on you.

[Zython]

Let's be honest. Trump coulda raped a woman on tape and at least 20% of the country would still have voted for him.

63 million/323 million = 19.5%

So pretty close, actually.

[McTroll]

Also, does this also apply to men?

"Since when men mattered? Hahahahaha!"

- - - Updated - - -

It was within the proper context if you had read the subsequent post. That's not on me. That's on you.

Nice copout. I'll let you be. Hope you'll return the favor.

[Vyuvarax]

No competent judge would accept "I don't remember" as proof of being unable to consent. Especially if they have any actual education.

If there's evidence she actually couldn't remember then yes, they would rule that as being unable to consent. The bar of evidence is difficult to pass. The evidence not being present does not mean that she a) lied, or b) was not raped.

[Sermistalot]

Let's be honest. Trump coulda raped a woman on tape and at least 20% of the country would still have voted for him.

Considering the country he runs, 20% is too little of a number.

Funny how practically every thread on MMOC turns into a Trump thread or an America bashing thread.
In this case both...

[Vyuvarax]

Logical fallacy aside, the two cases aren't even remotely similar. In the case of inebriation, being able to talk clearly and walk without stumbling is, in fact, indicative of not being "substantially impaired".

Legal precedence on what constitutes competence is a logical fallacy? Better inform every lawyer currently practicing lol.

[Liarparadox]

This young man's life could have been destroyed because of this liar. It saddens me when people do this because it makes victims of real rape less believable.

I agree about the "real rape less believable" part. It's horrible. But, and not to suggest you disagree, we shouldn't forget that the falsely accused is also a victim of a horrible crime. This is literally life ruining sometimes, as you point out. These cases need to end with the accuser being punished. Waste of time/money/justice system along with the two other issues mentioned. There are already laws about it, but there need to be severe punishments for this sort of false accusation.

[Elba]

Considering the country he runs, 20% is too little of a number.

Remember when he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose votes? He wasn't kidding.

[Vyuvarax]

Nice copout. I'll let you be. Hope you'll return the favor.

You refusing to read to understand context is a copout on me? LOL dude, how ashamed of the hole you've dug yourself are you?

[McTroll]

Funny how practically every thread on MMOC turns into a Trump thread or an America bashing thread.
In this case both...

Alright, duly noted.

1 == all

- - - Updated - - -

You refusing to read to understand context is a copout on me? LOL dude, how ashamed of the hole you've dug yourself are you?

*sigh* should've known... Take care.

[Violent]

If "Being Drunk" negates all accountability, we wouldn't be jailing drink drivers.

If you're only a "whore" when you're drunk and do not even remember being such, YOU shouldn't drink.
Or at least, don't bitch about the trouble you get yourself into, by being a drunk whore.

[Elba]

If "Being Drunk" negates all accountability, we wouldn't be jailing drink drivers.

Driving is something you do. Rape is something done to you.

[McTroll]

Driving is something you do. Rape is something done to you.

Unless you're the perpetrator?

[triplesdsu]

She should go to jail for providing a false rape charge, IMO. Either that or there needs to be legal ramifications for organizations that take negative action towards someone who was found not guilt/ falsely accused of rape. The fact that a mere accusation can ruin someone's life is appalling.

I think thats a bit extreme. If they knowing made a false report, then yes, they should be prosecuted. The problem is when people drinking and both parties are functioning enough to consent but they wake up with the after effects and incorrectly think they were raped. I've investigated a couple where it turned out to be similar to this case, but the girls themselves legitimately thought they were drunk. They drank too much and didnt remember much afterwards, but at the time witnesses said they were functioning and not stumbling drunk. So while they werent raped, they werent intentionally or maliciously trying to get someone in trouble wrongly. They believed it to be true when they reported.