‘A drunk can consent’ judge finds second \cabbie not guilty of sexually assault

[Nynax]

possible Far left response: "Another rapists goes free, when will the patriarchy end?"

possible Far right response: "another example of Muslims getting away with crime and taking over our country!"

Only person that cannot win is the cabbie.

[Tennis]

Once again I'm wondering how one can be responsible for killing someone when drunk, or responsible for petty vandalism when drunk, but not responsible for having sex when drunk.

Um the first few are a one person act. The last is a 2 person act. Nice try..

Also how can you be living in Finland and be up at this hour...

[unfilteredJW]

If I can get my entire life fucked up by getting drunk and then getting into a car and driving, not sure why it shouldn't apply to other things.

- - - Updated - - -

Um the first few are a one person act. The last is a 2 person act. Nice try..

Also how can you be living in Finland and be up at this hour...

Oh, so you just have bullshit handwaving.

[Deleted]

Um the first few are a one person act. The last is a 2 person act.

I don't think you quite understood, but that's OK. I wasn't really aiming my post at you anyway.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Here's the thing, because you stated it, if the evidence shows that the rape occurred, then why is sobriety even allowed in the discussion?
If the victim was incapacitated, the mechanism of that incapacitation is completely irrelevant to the actual rape. If the victim fell from the second story and was knocked out and someone raped them, or if they got black out drunk and someone raped them, it's still rape. What's important is they were incapacitated, not how. Now if this moves into the realm of a premeditated attack, then the mechanism of the incapacitation means something, but that's because it was a tool of the attacker.

In the case of he said she said rape, sobriety means nothing unless the lack of it was forced upon the victim.
A charge of rape because someone decided they were drunk and didn't actually want to have sex with this person isn't rape. A rape never occurred, just the removal of consent afterwards. Prove that a rape occurred. Don't prove that you can't hold your alcohol.

Right and I'm saying that she should or he should have the right to say I was drunk and I didn't give consent. If they can prove it by the evidence meaning she at no point gave consent he had sex with her or him and they have enough credible witnesses then lock the rapist up. Tag their ass for life.

[shadowmouse]

I don't get why people are so desperate for some that they must go to such lengths to take advantage of drunk people.

Helps to read the article you copy pasta. Although this judge is called the "a drunk can consent" judge in this bit of clickbait, alcohol and consent were not the issue in this case.

Complainant alleged that driver touched her without her consent.
Crown failed to show that she had even been in the accused's cab.
Accused denied she had been in his vehicle.
Case flopped, with the complainant not even present for sentencing.

But Judge Gregory Lenehan said Thursday the Crown did not come anywhere near proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and did a “disservice” to the complainant and to the community.

Why did she think she would get a guilty verdict? She may nor may not have. She complained something happened. It was up to the police to investigate properly and the Crown was responsible for proving the elements of the case beyond reasonable doubt.

[McFuu]

Right and I'm saying that she should or he should have the right to say I was drunk and I didn't give consent. If they can prove it by the evidence meaning she at no point gave consent he had sex with her or him and they have enough credible witnesses then lock the rapist up. Tag their ass for life.

Exactly, if they can prove she didn't consent. What does proving she was drinking have to do with proving she didn't consent? They are completely separate in this situation. It's the same as she didn't have breakfast this morning, she can't consent. Her quinoa shake wasn't good, she didn't consent. Unless he/she is incapacitated, ie they are unconscious or in a state of deliriousness, they can and should be held responsible for their actions. That includes being able to consent to sex.

Sobriety means nothing, you are either incapacitated or you are not. Booze doesn't magically give you a sliding scale of incapacitation that you can use to your own ends.

[Heladys]

There are different levels of drunk, someone who is slightly buzzed can definitely consent. Someone who don't understand what's going on, can't.

Thread over in one. Nailed it.

[snitcher geralt]

Again, because driving a car like drunk require to be conscious, while many cases of ''LULZ, WUMIN'' involve women who are passed out

you can be in the exact same condition and get hit with a DUI and be raped, being conscious isn't the issue, an unconscious person can't consent, the rulings often say a DRUNK person can't consent (but can get in trouble for driving drunk)

it's a double standard meant to protect people (women) who get drunk, get loose and regret it later

[Manabomb]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3761432/d...ing-passenger/



I don't get why people are so desperate for some that they must go to such lengths to take advantage of drunk people.

Also, why would the alleged victim think that she would get a guilty verdict without any solid evidence?

I'm sorry, but short of rendering a body passed out a drunk can consent. If they can consent to more alcohol, they can consent to any other 'adult' thing.

[Najnaj]

...because getting vomited on by an unconscious person is hot?

Is this really a big issue or can we file it with transgender bathrooms? Surely women (and transgenders) have more pressing issues that need to be discussed.

[Torto]

I'm sure there is a lesson to be learned from this story. Whether it's 'don't get in a cab with an Arab' or 'don't let a drunk woman get in your cab' I'm not sure.

[Seranthor]

The phrase usual suspects is coming. I can feel it.

I think I'd say that is a 100% chance.

[LiiLoSNK]

When you get drunk and do something insanely stupid, that's on you. Either learn to drink responsibly or keep going hard like a pro and wake up willing to accept the consequences of your drunken shameful warpath.

Both are respectable options.

The problem is when you start blaming others for your own mistakes and inability to drink.

[Manabomb]

...because getting vomited on by an unconscious person is hot?

Is this really a big issue or can we file it with transgender bathrooms? Surely women (and transgenders) have more pressing issues that need to be discussed.

Considering conservatives see these issues as "so evil we must make legislation against them", not really. Being constantly legislated against as if you're not a human being is exactly the highest issue for women and transgenders.

[Tenjen]

Once again I'm wondering how one can be responsible for killing someone when drunk, or responsible for petty vandalism when drunk, but not responsible for having sex when drunk.

You have it the other way around. You are held responsible for killing someone drunk, you are held responsible for robbing drunk. You dont say "oh but they were drunk, they had it coming, let the murderer/thief go". So why should sexually assaulting someone inebriated out of their senses be any different?


People like to support their own arguements by making up examples where its less of an issue but the real situations actually being focused on here is when a person can't make decisions for themselves and is taken advantage of. Changing that very real context makes for a laughable form of debate. Which is and should be against the law. If you're the sort of person who drops their morals and breaks the law only because the opportunity presents itself, you should obviously go to jail/be punished.

- - - Updated - - -

When you get drunk and do something insanely stupid, that's on you. Either learn to drink responsibly or keep going hard like a pro and wake up willing to accept the consequences of your drunken shameful warpath.

Both are respectable options.

The problem is when you start blaming others for your own mistakes and inability to drink.

Having someone done TO YOU is still on the other person.

[LiiLoSNK]

Having someone done TO YOU is still on the other person.

Gotcha gotcha. I forgot to include the basics for people with zero life who live through these sad forums.

If it's your first time getting drunk and your friends are equally as socially inept as you, don't black out because apparently you will get raped by people who you know. And every other friend you have. Because rape is unavoidable.

editing this because I feel like someone might try it if i don't say anything. DO NOT PUT ANYTHING INSIDE ANYONE WHO ISNT AWAKE, MMOCHAMPION. I KNOW YOU HOPEFULLY KNOW THIS.

[Deleted]

You have it the other way around. You are held responsible for killing someone drunk, you are held responsible for robbing drunk. You dont say "oh but they were drunk, they had it coming, let the murderer/thief go". So why should sexually assaulting someone inebriated out of their senses be any different?

I don't think the hypothetical was a sober person killing or robbing someone who was drunk, but rather a drunk person committing murder or theft. If you are drunk and you kill someone, or you're drunk and you rob someone, you're held responsible for your actions and the sobriety of the victim is considered irrelevant to the case, because you made a conscious decision to do that thing. The same should apply to sex: if someone is drunk and consents to sex, then they made that decision and should be held responsible for it. That goes for both men and women, in whatever combination. You can't prosecute one person for having sex while drunk while at the same time exonerating the other party from responsibility because they were drunk.

The question of rape should be "Did the accused engage in sexual behaviour with the accuser without any kind of tacit consent, or in any way involving coercion?" If the answer is no, it's not rape. Agreeing to sex because your morals are looser than they normally would be due to you choosing to imbibe more alcohol than your morality system can cope with does not constitute a rape when you later wake up and realise you made a mistake.

Do not misunderstand what I'm saying here, however. I'm in no way saying that having sex with a drunk person who did not *explicitly* agree to it is okay. It's not okay to have sex with someone who's unconscious and can't consent. It's not okay to intentionally encourage or force someone to drink more than they normally would in order to have sex with them. But in all cases where it would be considered rape, I don't think the actual sobriety of the victim OR the perpetrator has any bearing on the facts. The important part is *consciousness*, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[[Apok]]

Guess the judge is a fan of fake taxi

[Deleted]

Being drunk shouldn't make you immune to personal responsibility