Derrick Rose rape accusations raise issues of consent

[Cerus]

Doesn't matter whether or not they were actually raped. The point is the instances where women later decide (whether it be 5 minutes later or 5 months later) that they didn't 'want' the sex. There is no way to prove in court whether or not consent was given (unless you literally have a recorded video, which is unlikely), yet it would then fall upon the male to prove that they had consent.



Yet you conveniently don't give a definition of 'consent'. So tell me; what is consent? Is it a particular question and particular answer only? "Would you like to have sex?" answered with "Yes, I would like to have sex." and nothing else? Would it be considered consent to just nod their head in answer? Would it be considered consent if they were the one that made advances and took off their clothing first?

You don't just get to go waltzing around whining about other people's definitions of consent when you yourself are not presenting one nor giving reasoning as to why yours would be correct. Pretty much ALL definitions of 'consent' could be abused to so called allow 'legal rape', which is why consent is such a hot button topic. But when you just nitpick other people's definitions without presenting your own you are just being unfair and dishonest.



Because compared to a long term relationship, on average, mere hook-ups are far and away more shallow. Most often they are conduits for sex, not a relationship of any kind.

Relationships are a sociological fabrication. Like all other animals, humans are driven to procreate.

[Merkava]

Oh Endus - you really should stick to Canadian matters. Here in the US it's innocent until proven guilty. That is the cornerstone of the American justice system. It's on the state to prove guilt. Testimony without evidence isn't evidence of anything. A he said she said ends with acquittal without any corroborating witnesses or physical evidence.

That might be true in a criminal case, but this is a civil case and the burden of proof is different.

[Garnier Fructis]

And what if this drunk person gives consent while you yourself are not drunk?



Surely there is a difference between deliberate and accidental actions, but when it boils down to only deliberate actions why should intent be a factor?

Both of these really come down to the observation that drunk people generally aren't capable of consent or rational thought.

[Cerus]

That might be true in a criminal case, but this is a civil case and the burden of proof is different.

The burden of proof is still on the accuser.

[Merkava]

The burden of proof is still on the accuser.

True. But it's much less. She just has to show that her accusations are more likely than not true, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Endus]

I don't think I've ever seen you desire to engage in honest discussion. An honest discussion would be about the definitions of these words and actions.

And those definitions are concrete, and known. There's really not much to discuss, in that regard. It's like trying to have a discussion on the color "red".

It's not my fault you are vague and then get mad at people when they try to draw any meaning whatsoever from your posts. I see no reason why a mere accusation should ever serve as the sole reasoning to convict a person of rape in the face of any denial from the accused that itself doesn't unintentionally condemn the accused.

The only "vagueness" is that the precise determination of whether consent existed or not in any particular case is up to a judge and jury. There is no way to objectively measure that, which is what you're digging for, and it's a ridiculous request, because that wouldn't exist under a common law legal code. Because those involve juries, who exist for precisely that purpose.

Laws cannot be subjective, as a part of the due process clause of the 14th amendment laws must be definitive in what they prohibit so people can be held accountable when they choose to break it.

Literally none of this is true. The standard is the understanding of a reasonable person. That's what juries provide. If you didn't understand it in the same way as the jury all mutually agree it must be interpreted, then you're not a "reasonable person" in the first place.

Oh Endus - you really should stick to Canadian matters. Here in the US it's innocent until proven guilty. That is the cornerstone of the American justice system. It's on the state to prove guilt. Testimony without evidence isn't evidence of anything. A he said she said ends with acquittal without any corroborating witnesses or physical evidence.

Testimony is evidence, even in the USA. You not liking that fact doesn't change it.

[DrStiglit]

And how exactly would 'something romantic' qualify as legally binding 'consent'?

No means no is what consent is. Don't like it? Say no. Don't want it? Say no. Say 'stop'.

Humans shouldn't have to worry about obligatory legal nonsense before each and every single physical contact with another human; that is simply ridiculous.

How about we film this - Now you have proof she was consenting.

[Gandrake]

A lot of women actually do not find that attractive.

It is a bit of a hassle, but if you put your dick in and she doesn't want it in, all you have to do is take it out and say you're sorry... if you're close enough to be flicking her bean and making out, it's really not going to be that awkward. Just be like... ok well can i get a blowjob?

not awkward at all.

[Endus]

The burden of proof is still on the accuser.

Like Merkava said, in a civil case, if her testimony as compared to his leads to the jury agreeing that "yeah, he probably broke the law she's accusing him of", then that has met the burden of proof for a civil case.

For a criminal case, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", but that's still a bar that testimony alone can pass.

It may not be easy for it to do so, and usually involves his account being straight-up unbelievable for some reason (like "no, she totally wanted me to punch her so hard in the face that she lost three teeth, honest.") But the possibility does exist, and whether it passes that bar is up to the judge and jury.

[PassingBy]

Like Merkava said, in a civil case, if her testimony as compared to his leads to the jury agreeing that "yeah, he probably broke the law she's accusing him of", then that has met the burden of proof for a civil case.

For a criminal case, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", but that's still a bar that testimony alone can pass.

It may not be easy for it to do so, and usually involves his account being straight-up unbelievable for some reason (like "no, she totally wanted me to punch her so hard in the face that she lost three teeth, honest.") But the possibility does exist, and whether it passes that bar is up to the judge and jury.

In this case apart of her testimony there is actual proof.
1. She has missing teeth, bruises, and stuff.
2. He has bruised knuckles (the teeth aren't easy to knock out, they are sharp and quite hard).
So there is actual medical evidence apart from the testimony of either of them.

[Merkava]

In this case apart of her testimony there is actual proof.
1. She has missing teeth, bruises, and stuff.
2. He has bruised knuckles (the teeth aren't easy to knock out, they are sharp and quite hard).
So there is actual medical evidence apart from the testimony of either of them.

Why didn't she file criminal charges?

[Kapadons]

I seriously hope you are kidding. Rape isn't just a penis inside you, and not only women get raped.

Studies have shown that up to 57% of woman have admitted to having rape fantasies. On a monthly basis. So forgive me for not understanding the big deal.

Men are supposed to be the aggressor in sex. Studies have shown women like that too. I don't think you should beat the shit out of a chick to make her submit to sex but this new trend of everything needing affirmative consent contractually signed and video and audio recorded with 6 witnesses just so a chick that had 2 beers or regrets it later can't fuck you over is very disturbing.

[Endus]

In this case apart of her testimony there is actual proof.
1. She has missing teeth, bruises, and stuff.
2. He has bruised knuckles (the teeth aren't easy to knock out, they are sharp and quite hard).
So there is actual medical evidence apart from the testimony of either of them.

Bruised knuckles are really not a given. And her own injuries prove nothing regarding the accused. You're shifting goalposts to ignore the central point.

Testimony alone is sufficient to convict, if there's no reasonable defense by the accused presenting any kind of reasonable doubt as to what happened.

[Canpinter]

Bruised knuckles are really not a given. And her own injuries prove nothing regarding the accused. You're shifting goalposts to ignore the central point.

Testimony alone is sufficient to convict, if there's no reasonable defense by the accused presenting any kind of reasonable doubt as to what happened.

unless the accused story involves riding the lockness monster to save a kidnapped Santa then you need more then testimony. when you only have the accusers statements a simple "no i was home alone that night" is the only defense needed to bring in reasonable doubt.

[Zantos]

Testimony alone is sufficient to convict, if there's no reasonable defense by the accused presenting any kind of reasonable doubt as to what happened.

I am sorry, but in what world is this even remotely possible? If everything was he said / she said, then half of us would already be in jail years ago. You can't just go "they stole my phone!" with Zero evidence or proof that you didn't just lose it in your messy house and have them thrown in jail.

Good legal cases require evidence. Facts. Proof!

Yet again, women are able to do some really ridiculous crap. I wouldn't be too surprised if they could just say "he did it" and the guy gets locked up. Heck, half the time they just have to say that and they go to jail. No questions asked. They wont even attempt to investigate until After the guy is sitting in jail.

[PenguinChan]

Testimony alone is sufficient to convict, if there's no reasonable defense by the accused presenting any kind of reasonable doubt as to what happened.

So pretty much if the defense is a loony, even if totally innocent, and provides little or to no useful information (Possibly even negative) they will have sufficient reason to make them guilty? If I'm reading this right, you pretty much either have to have a really stupid judge and jury or a really dumb defendant. So by and large, "He said, she said" won't evolve into anything without enough evidence beyond words, or the lack thereof.

[Kapadons]

So pretty much if the defense is a loony, even if totally innocent, and provides little or to no useful information (Possibly even negative) they will have sufficient reason to make them guilty? If I'm reading this right, you pretty much either have to have a really stupid judge and jury or a really dumb defendant. So by and large, "He said, she said" won't evolve into anything without enough evidence beyond words, or the lack thereof.

This is why you want a judge to try your rape case and not a jury. Juries are emotional.

[Endus]

unless the accused story involves riding the lockness monster to save a kidnapped Santa then you need more then testimony. when you only have the accusers statements a simple "no i was home alone that night" is the only defense needed to bring in reasonable doubt.

You usually do. I'm just making the point that testimony is evidence, and can be enough to convict by itself.

That doesn't by any means suggest it always is, which seems to be what you're arguing against.

I am sorry, but in what world is this even remotely possible? If everything was he said / she said, then half of us would already be in jail years ago. You can't just go "they stole my phone!" with Zero evidence or proof that you didn't just lose it in your messy house and have them thrown in jail.

Good legal cases require evidence. Facts. Proof!

Yet again, women are able to do some really ridiculous crap. I wouldn't be too surprised if they could just say "he did it" and the guy gets locked up. Heck, half the time they just have to say that and they go to jail. No questions asked. They wont even attempt to investigate until After the guy is sitting in jail.

See, what you're missing is that the victim's testimony can functionally be "proof". Incredulity isn't an argument against that. Plenty of cases are settled based on testimony.

Here's a US law firm's statement regarding this principle;

http://atkinsonlawoffices.com/uncate...e-is-no-proof/

A case based on testimony alone is usually a weak case, but it can be sufficient, in and of itself.

So pretty much if the defense is a loony, even if totally innocent, and provides little or to no useful information (Possibly even negative) they will have sufficient reason to make them guilty? If I'm reading this right, you pretty much either have to have a really stupid judge and jury or a really dumb defendant. So by and large, "He said, she said" won't evolve into anything without enough evidence beyond words, or the lack thereof.

Usually, it won't. That is by no means automatic, however, and cases where the sole evidence is the testimony of the victim do sometimes result in convictions.

[JTHMRulez1]

Studies have shown that up to 57% of woman have admitted to having rape fantasies.

There is a big difference between having rape fantasies and wanting to be raped.

[jicka]

well bottom line no means no no matter how you put it