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

[Tennis]

In the US we don't use the term Crown. So I don't know what that is.

Here we have Judge, Jury, Plaintiff, Defendant, and Lawyer. That is basically all that is involved. So I don't what Crown is, or where it fits into this.

Excuse me? This article isn't about the U.S. Stay on topic please.

[prwraith]

He is probably still fired and wont find anything else. Like you said, the damage is done. Just the accusation is enough to ensure he isn't allowed in another cab, let alone that anyone would trust him.

It should be illegal to fire someone for a lawsuit in which they're proven not guilty.

[Kathandira]

Excuse me? This article isn't about the U.S. Stay on topic please.

Oh, pull the eggplant out of your rear. I was only explaining why I didn't understand the situation. Which was absolutely on topic.

[meowfurion]

I really can't take people who think drunk people can't consent seriously. Especially how it only applies to women. If you made yourself drunk, you can consent. Beyond cases of people being coerced into drinking too much or being drugged, if you choose to drink, your sobriety or lack there of has no bearing on your ability to make decisions and put yourself in bad situations.

I agree completely. It relieves someone of the responsibility of taking care of themselves. Hell, why not use "i was drunk i didnt know what i was doing" for murder and theft? "Oh your honor, I was SO drunk i had no idea I was robbing that store or killing that guy with a knife! I don't even remember it!"

[Louisa Bannon]

I agree completely. It relieves someone of the responsibility of taking care of themselves. Hell, why not use "i was drunk i didnt know what i was doing" for murder and theft? "Oh your honor, I was SO drunk i had no idea I was robbing that store or killing that guy with a knife! I don't even remember it!"

The intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalalalalalalala..." very loudly won't actually make reasonable defenses concerning altered states of mind any less viable in courts of law across the world.

[TITAN308]

What if both parties are hammered?

Then is a draw and no one can claim anything?

[McTroll]

Men have no business speaking of consent. None whatsoever!

[Underverse]

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

Then it's an issue of being unconscious, not an issue of being drunk. One can become unconscious for a plethora of reasons.

[Moridius]

Oh, pull the eggplant out of your rear. I was only explaining why I didn't understand the situation. Which was absolutely on topic.

Googling Crown in a court of law is apparently too OP.

[Deleted]

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.

If they are awake and they got themselves drunk than they can consent in my book. If if it counted for men and women I might think different, but as it stands now drunk men are blamed when both are drunk.

[McFuu]

The intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalalalalalalala..." very loudly won't actually make reasonable defenses concerning altered states of mind any less viable in courts of law across the world.

Altered state of mind defenses still come with jail and/or psychiatric time attached to them. But we aren't talking about defenses here, we are talking about the plaintiff using altered state of mind as some kind of affirming evidence of rape. This is literally the only time that such evidence can ever be used in courts of law. And the only reason why this kind of evidence doesn't get ripped to shreds by defense lawyers is because "you can't put the victim on trial." Defense lawyers can not attack the plaintiffs sobriety. But the plaintiff can use their sobriety as an affirmation of "I said no." Even if zero other evidence exists that the plaintiff actually said no.

Luckily due to the system getting abused by fake rape victims there will be more cases where, I was drunk I couldn't consent will get tossed. Not that it matters at that point, a lot of people get their lives ruined just being accused of rape.

[Lynarii]

People who are happy about the 'drunks can consent' comment should keep in mind that it was used to let off a taxi driver that was caught by other people having sex with an unconscious woman that he was paid to drive home. He said that he believed she had consented before she passed out, therefore it was okay. She said she passed out shortly after getting in the taxi and has no memory of the ride home at all. The judge agreed that she hadn't consented, but ruled that because she couldn't remember the ride, it was possible that she had said something that could have been mistaken as consent by the driver. And the fact that she was drunk and unconscious was not a valid reason for him to not have sex with her.

The ruling basically states that it is okay for anyone to have sex with an unconscious person, because unconscious people can't prove they didn't want it. Frankly, I can't see how anyone who ISN'T a rapist would be happy about this. Since if you're out looking for unconscious strangers to have sex with, you kinda ARE a rapist.

[Deleted]

Drunk is such a broad useless term....

It's consent UNTIL they're passed out or don't know where they are

[Total Crica]

Solution: wear attire with this printed on it in BIG BOLD letters: "I do NOT want to copulate when I am drunk!" while you are drinking. Problem solved. Until they steal your attire, of course. Then you have new problems. /shrug

[ro9ue]

Wait let me get this straight an ugly bitch that might have regrets over having sex with you though?

See I am always suspicious of this kind of shit.

No if you are drunk you can't consent IMO, maybe some don't care maybe that isn't how it pans out, but I don't know many who roll the dice and fuck someone where there is a questionable line whether they be ugly or not.

It's real simple, if the argument is that SHE in this case it is on the woman is rolling the dice well then so are you, and she wakes up after having sex and saying NOPE, then I think a charge of rape is legitimate providing their is evidence going forward to prove it.


If the idea is well we don't want to victim blame, but at the same time we don't want to say women can't make their own decisions then we need to pick where that should be.

Because yeah guys have choices to make too, and if the choice is well she can roll the dice you roll the dice, well then there is no bitching if in comes back to bite either in the ass, and then it's just up to where the evidence leads.

So did you ever have sex while drunk? According to what you're saying here, those people just raped each other? Lol, I dunno about that one.

Look there's a huge gray area here. If people are both drunk and they have sex, it's a drunk mistake. If anyone is like blackout drunk and wake up to someone fucking them... yeah that's a problem.

As it turns out, there's a huge spectrum of levels of drunk. Then you have to take into consideration the drunkness of each party, and then the responsibility of the people getting drunk in the first place.

This is no cut and dry, 1 size fits all issue.

[Karon]

It's easy, if you don't have yourself under control while doing drugs you simply shouldn't do drugs.

[AeneasBK]

People who are happy about the 'drunks can consent' comment should keep in mind that it was used to let off a taxi driver that was caught by other people having sex with an unconscious woman that he was paid to drive home. He said that he believed she had consented before she passed out, therefore it was okay. She said she passed out shortly after getting in the taxi and has no memory of the ride home at all. The judge agreed that she hadn't consented, but ruled that because she couldn't remember the ride, it was possible that she had said something that could have been mistaken as consent by the driver. And the fact that she was drunk and unconscious was not a valid reason for him to not have sex with her.

Stay classy Judge Lenehan

[ohwell]

Wait let me get this straight an ugly bitch that might have regrets over having sex with you though?

See I am always suspicious of this kind of shit.

No if you are drunk you can't consent IMO, maybe some don't care maybe that isn't how it pans out, but I don't know many who roll the dice and fuck someone where there is a questionable line whether they be ugly or not.

It's real simple, if the argument is that SHE in this case it is on the woman is rolling the dice well then so are you, and she wakes up after having sex and saying NOPE, then I think a charge of rape is legitimate providing their is evidence going forward to prove it.


If the idea is well we don't want to victim blame, but at the same time we don't want to say women can't make their own decisions then we need to pick where that should be.

Because yeah guys have choices to make too, and if the choice is well she can roll the dice you roll the dice, well then there is no bitching if in comes back to bite either in the ass, and then it's just up to where the evidence leads.

So then you're saying the person you quoted was raped by the "ugly bitch".

[Doctor Amadeus]

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.

Hahaha, this is the best comment on this thread!

[Spectral]

If you're sober enough to call a cab, you're probably sober enough to consent.

That said, there are just about zero 26 year old that consent to being groped by Arab cabbies.

That said, the judge mostly seems to be saying that the prosecution did a shitty job.