"She lead the way" USC student cleared of rape

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Because he has the backing of the entire fucking country?

Hahahahaha... he doesn't even have the backing of everyone working directly for and under him. XD

[Elba]

Unless you're the perpetrator?

Well, perpetrator means being the one doing a crime, doesn't it?

[McTroll]

Well, perpetrator means being the one doing a crime, doesn't it?

Indeed it does. But you said that rape is something done to someone else. But it takes someone to do it as well, does it not?

[Mistame]

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.

Not if they actually understand how it works. You can have sex, then get drunk and then not remember having sex prior to getting drunk. Again, memory loss is not a valid indicator of one's inability to consent and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Period.

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

Using a completely different and unrelated scenario to support an argument for something is. It's like saying, "drunk people aren't allowed to drive, thus old people shouldn't be allowed to drive". It's stupid.

Edit: Given your apparent inability to process the nuances of various scenarios, I suppose I shouldn't have assumed that you'd understand that my mention of "memory loss" refers specifically to inebriation and that memory loss due to age has no relevance whatsoever.

[Liarparadox]

How drunk is too drunk? How is someone to judge? .<snip>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.

Exactly. I mean, obviously people consent to stuff when they are drunk knowing full well what the hell they are doing. Have these people ever been drunk? WTF? I do it all the time, and so do millions of people every single day/night. That's the whole point to night clubs and bar scenes for a significant number of people. To go out and get laid; and they want to do so DRUNK! Obviously there is such a thing as too drunk, for exampled, unconscious. But just drunk? What a joke. That's every major city that has bars/clubs....on the planet!

And of course it doesn't apply to men. No that's never the concern; that's today's victim feminism mindset; talk about equality and well-being, but only apply it to some groups. In the case of consent it's only ever to apply to women, which does nothing but dehumanize them. Odd how a sexist society used to count a woman's testimony as half that as a man's. Now with victim feminisim they are taking up that view again: women can't handle themselves. It's dehumanizing and it ensures they are treated as eggshells rather than equals.

[Mehrunes]

The court in People v. Giardino (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 454 set forth the law concerning rape of an intoxicated woman. In analyzing Penal Code Section 261(a)(3), the court laid out two central foundations:

1) When interpreting the phrase “prevented from resisting,” the jury must determine whether, as a result of intoxication, the victim lacked the legal capacity to give valid consent based on a reasonable and informed use of judgment.

2) “In deciding whether the level of the victim’s intoxication deprived the victim of legal capacity to give consent, the jury must consider all of the circumstances, including the victim’s age and maturity.”

In short, a case involving the alleged rape of an intoxicated woman requires a determination of whether her intoxication prevented her from exercising reasonable judgment and a consideration of all the circumstances to determine whether the victim’s mental impairment was so great that it deprived the victim of the ability to exercise reasonable judgment – merely being “tipsy” is not enough.

Do you honestly not see how this runs contrary to your earlier narrative? For reference:

No you're not. That's why its reckless endangerment as a charge. The court considers you not in control of your actions while drunk driving. You don't need to be in control of your actions to be charged.

A drunk women is not considered capable of consent. That's in any rape statute.

In subsection 1-A, it says they have to be able to consent, and courts have deemed that intoxication renders a party unable to consent. That means its court precedence as well as written in many state statutes as well as the federal statute. Again, you need to read court opinions in conjunction with relevant cases that established precedence in the 80s/90s.

Cool story but you're still wrong. You're extremely pathetic at being condescending, so right out of the gate, I have a hard time believing you have ever even seen the bar exam, much less what it takes to get there.

But please, tell us more.

She's also patently wrong.

[Violent]

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

Sex is something you do.

Rape is something that happens to you.


Driving is something you do.

An accident, that of which is not your fault, is something that happens to you.


Yes, please follow along.

[Mehrunes]

Also, I find the notion of anybody's life being ruined over a "false accusation" hilarious.

We have actual, proven rapists winning Oscars.

And that prevents false accusation from being harmful how?

[Hisholyness]

Doesn't she say she can't remember anything though? Why did the guy do such an act with a drunk woman?

that was her subconscious, at a minimum, initiating the event. You cant be a victim if you are the initiator

[Nynax]

If the camera's show that she led him away, it makes me wonder...

Why is no one presenting the possibility that HE was more drunk than her, and HE couldn't consent. What if HE was raped.

Her claiming to not have memories of the event could just as easily be a lie, so that is not a defense imo.

[Elba]

Sex is something you do.

Rape is something that happens to you.


Driving is something you do.

An accident, that of which is not your fault, is something that happens to you.

Yes. So what is your point?

[Hisholyness]

If the camera's show that she led him away, it makes me wonder...

Why is no one presenting the possibility that HE was more drunk than her, and HE couldn't consent. What if HE was raped.

Her claiming to not have memories of the event could just as easily be a lie, so that is not a defense imo.

men cant be raped dude, sorry

[McTroll]

sorry

I don't believe you.

[Mistame]

men cant be raped dude, sorry

Patently false.

[Captain Proton]

No you're not. That's why its reckless endangerment as a charge. The court considers you not in control of your actions while drunk driving. You don't need to be in control of your actions to be charged.

A drunk women is not considered capable of consent. That's in any rape statute.

This is just false. Reckless endangerment does not dictate in anyway whether you're in control of your actions or not.

Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all of the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

Whether your in control of your actions or not, is not a point in Reckless Endangerment.

[Hisholyness]

Patently false.

Check the Federal Index of Double Standards, section 12 chapter 3

[Mehrunes]

It is a he said, she said situation. And given rape being far more common it is prudent to believe her instead of him and act accordingly. Why should I believe him?

This idiocy of yours relies on the fact that rape is more common than false allegation of it. But her claims don't have to be an actual false accusation for them to be incorrect, making said idiocy of yours collapse on itself.

[Violent]

Yes. So what is your point?

My point being.... If we can hold those whom drink and drive accountable, seeing as how they MADE THE WRONG DECISION. That being, getting in the car and driving, even though you know you shouldn't, since drinking. Has bad consequences, can end horribly.

If one drinks, to the point of not being "able" to consent. Drunk or not, you made the decision. In this case, to seduce another person. Or at least, make it appear as such. But you were drunk to begin with, then that's the same as knowing you're drunk, deciding to drive, and plowing into a family of 4.

Obviously that's a consequence of drunk driving.. So not remembering whom you slept with one drunken night, is a consequence of YOU personally getting drunk to the point of which you are no longer in control. But KNOWING that, and then still letting yourself get to said point. Does not instantly make you a victim and everyone else an aggressor.

Also, how would the guy know that she wouldn't remember? There by making HIS actions wrong. Just because he remembers, doesn't make him at fault.

[Mistame]

Check the Federal Index of Double Standards, section 12 chapter 3

You do understand that to properly deliver sarcasm/satire/irony, you have to actually deliver it, right?

[Mehrunes]

Legally he is not guilty. Does not mean there shouldn't be social consequences.

OJ Simpson is legally not guilty of murder. Still wouldn't want to be alone with him.

OJ Simpson's case was lost on a procedural technicality, which is in no way comparable to this situation. He also lost a case in civil court. And has been imprisoned for a kidnapping and other crimes later on. And there is nothing that indicates this guy is guilty of anything other than you nonsensically misapplying likelihood of rape compared to likelihood of false allegation of rape without any clue whatsoever. So yes, it means there shouldn't be social consequences. You haven't established any real justification of social consequences. Your comparison is all sorts of shit.