Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Fine, new game. On a scale of 1 through 10 how much does Mist hate these bitches.

Hmmm... none of them are fat, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there for them to fuck (assuming they're hetero), so...

6?

Edit: Missed the guys in the back.

8!

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Please stop. You're misunderstanding the case and we'd all like to move on.

Of course, I just misunderstood the case.... of course... care to explain how I misunderstood it. Actually don't, coming from you saying "we misunderstood you" is the closest well get to " shit my bad I was wrong on that topic"

Arbitrary · Jul 3, 2014

Is this enough irresponsibility for a 10? Pretty sure everyone is also underage.

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

6 guys.. 8 girls... something is fishy !!!

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
Of course, I just misunderstood the case.... of course... care to explain how I misunderstood it. Actually don't, coming from you saying "we misunderstood you" is the closest well get to " shit my bad I was wrong on that topic"

*sigh* OK, Lendarios.

2009 California Penal Code - Section 261-269 :: Chapter 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse Of Children, And Seduction

Section 261.(a)(3) States that:

California Penal Code_sl said:
261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused.

The problem in the case I presented was the judge didn't explain this section properly. It's a tricky section to explain (apparently even for judges) and because of that it was decided that the jury were not given the proper information to come to their conclusion.

Would you like more details? I'd be happy to give you more if you like.

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Is this enough irresponsibility for a 10? Pretty sure everyone is also underage.

No, I think they'd have to be fat. And possibly black. Mist claimed to be a racist, but I'm not sure against what race.

Mist · Jul 3, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Fine, new game. On a scale of 1 through 10 how much does Mist hate these bitches.

All of them look human, so 10.

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

Did you just linked a definition that says that if is the spouse, then it can't be rape? Shit I hope FL has the same.

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
Did you just linked a definition that says that if is the spouse, then it can't be rape? Shit I hope FL has the same.

Yes I did. I found that surprising too.

By the way, if Lithose is reading, that particular definition of rape makes no reference to the victim having to be "penetrated", just that an "act of sexual intercourse" has to occur. It uses gender neutral terms, so I guess womencanrape men. I mean, in that it can happen, not that they can get away with it.

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
*sigh* OK, Lendarios.

2009 California Penal Code - Section 261-269 :: Chapter 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse Of Children, And Seduction

Section 261.(a)(3) States that:

The problem in the case I presented was the judge didn't explain this section properly. It's a tricky section to explain (apparently even for judges) and because of that it was decided that the jury were not given the proper information to come to their conclusion.

Would you like more details? I'd be happy to give you more if you like.

Did she tell you she wanted to resist? How do you know, did you feel it?
Read the quote I provided how the girl masturbated in front of the guys, and tell me how the alcohol prevented her from resisting. Everyone that has been pretty drunk never has the urge to grab their dick and jerk one off. Or females drink and all of the sudden have to start humping shit like dogs.

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
Did she tell you she wanted to resist? How do you know, did you feel it?
Read the quote I provided how the girl masturbated in front of the guys, and tell me how the alcohol prevented her from resisting. Everyone that has been pretty drunk never has the urge to grab their dick and jerk one off. Or females drink and all of the sudden have to start humping shit like dogs.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. No idea. Was that a request for more details? I'll assume it was.

(Spoilered for length and legalese)

People vs Giardino_sl said:
A. Lack of Actual Consent Is Not an Element of Rape by Intoxication.

[1] The defendant asked the trial court to give a "consent instruction" regarding the charges of rape by intoxication and oral copulation by intoxication. In his oral request, the defendant did not describe the requested instruction in any detail, but the trial court interpreted him to be asking that the jury be instructed either that lack of consent was an element of those crimes or that consent is a defense. The trial court refused to do so.

Reasoning that lack of consent is an element of rape, or conversely that consent is a defense, the defendant contends that the trial court should have defined consent in accordance with section 261.6 and instructed the jury that lack of consent is an element of the offenses of rape by intoxication and oral copulation by intoxication. fn. 2 He is mistaken.

The defendant (the side accused of rape) wanted the jury to be informed that for rape to occur, there must be no consent (or alternatively, if consent is given, it's not a rape). That is wrong.

People vs Giardino_sl said:
By itself, the existence of actual consent is not sufficient to establish a defense to a charge of rape.That the supposed victim actually consented to sexual intercourse disproves rape only if he or she had "sufficient capacity" to give that consent.(See People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 143, 154 [125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337]; 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Crimes Against Decency and Morals, ? 774, p. 873.) For example, if the victim is so unsound of mind that he or she is incapable of giving legal consent, the fact that he or she may have given actual consent does not prevent a conviction of rape. (People v. Griffin (1897) 117 Cal. 583, 585-587 [49 P. 711], overruled on others grounds by People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 529, 536 [39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673, 8 A.L.R.3d 1092].) Hence, the consent defense fails if the victim either did not actually consent or lacked the capacity to give legally cognizable consent.

This is a clarification of how someone can say "yes" to sex (this is what we call "actual consent") without it counting as "legal consent" if that person does not have "sufficient capacity" (ie: be able to make rational decisions) to give give consent.

So what went wrong? What was the problem in this case?

People vs Giardino_sl said:
B. The Trial Court Prejudicially Erred by Failing to Explain to the Jury the Meaning of "Prevented from Resisting."

[2] In accordance with CALJIC No. 10.02, the jury was instructed that one of the elements of rape by intoxication was that "[t]he alleged victim was prevented from resisting the act by an intoxicating substance ...." In an apparent reference to that instruction, after several hours of deliberation the jury asked the court for the legal definition of "resistance." The defendant contends that the trial court erred in responding to that request. The People argue that the issue has been waived and that in any event there was no error.

So, when the jury was given the description of "rape" including "victim was prevented from resisting", they wanted to know what was meant by "resisting". A valid question.

People vs Giardino_sl said:
In response to the jury's request for further instruction, and with the agreement of defense counsel, the trial court instructed the jury that "[t]his is an area in which you must use your common sense and experience to determine the everyday meaning of resistance." Sensing that the jury was dissatisfied with that response, the trial court told the jury that counsel would research the matter overnight "to determine whether we can get a definition that might be a little more satisfactory."

The judge responded "Use your common sense." Jury didn't seem happy, judge said "We'll think about it and get back to you tomorrow."

People vs Giardino_sl said:
The next morning, defense counsel proposed instructing the jury that resistance is "the application of force ... to thwart off another force." The trial court declined to do so, stating: "I think upon further reflection that I'm just going to stick with the definition we gave them yesterday.... I think [82 Cal. App. 4th 465] it is a common sense and common experience decision, and I'm going to leave it at that. And I'm simply going to go in and tell the jury, unless I hear objection, that they must deal with the definition we've provided them yesterday." Defense counsel responded by saying "Very well."

Defense proposes "using force against force" to describe "resistance". Judge says "Meh... I think I'll just leave it at what I said yesterday. Common sense."

This was the problem. The jury asked a valid question and didn't get a valid answer. They had to make a judgment based on incomplete information.

Shall I go on? I honestly don't mind. This is more interesting than I expected.

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

Find out if the case was re tried, and if it was, what was the outcome?
Also read the whole case. They had sex in the house and after went to a motel where they had then he drop her at her house. The next day she came over and was no animosity among them.
Sounds like a case of bad decisions..

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
Find out if the case was re tried, and if it was, what was the outcome?

Ummm... I think you're still missing something. The person claiming rape in this particular case doesn't have to have actually been raped to prove my point. I'm not arguing that this girl was raped. I never was. I'm arguing that it's possible to get a "yes" for sex (actual consent) and still not get legal consent. That point is made explicitly clear multiple times in the analysis of this case.

Lithose · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes I did. I found that surprising too.

By the way, if Lithose is reading, that particular definition of rape makes no reference to the victim having to be "penetrated", just that an "act of sexual intercourse" has to occur. It uses gender neutral terms, so I guess womencanrape men. I mean, in that it can happen, not that they can get away with it.

It makes reference to "sexual intercourse"--which has a specific meaning (Which might vary by state). You may perceive "sexual intercourse" as "any sexual contact", but thelawmight requirepenetrationto be sexual intercourse (This is literally why we have lawyers, legal definitions might vary a large degree from every day usage--usually the standards are much higher and more exact). Notice how the law is written VERY carefully to only reference sexual intercourse and not a more vague term, like sexual contact? I'm not sure on California's terms, but in the few states I've read about, sexual intercourse requirespenetration. It USED to require penetration of the penis; but has since changed to any penetration (Fingers, Tongue ect.) The example here is Connecticut. (From what I've read, for what's it's worth, many states don't classify it as rape, all sexual contact is just sexual assault--it's mainly a statistics problem, record keeping.)

Now, I haven't researched it thoroughly so I'm not going to say I'm absolutely certain--it's just what I've read from a few sources. I'm not sure if "sexual intercourse" counts if the man is forced to penetrate, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I think you'd need to research case law on it. I am fairly positive up until a few decades ago (Late 70's), it was absolutely impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what the circumstances--she could get in trouble for "sexual molestation" or "assault"--but it could NOT be classified as rape. I do know, that statistically, men were not even counted until recently, even when raped by anothermale. It was always recorded as "sexual molestation" or some other category, not rape.

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Ummm... I think you're still missing something. The person claiming rape in this particular case doesn't have to have actually been raped to prove my point. I'm not arguing that this girl was raped. I never was. I'm arguing that it's possible to get a "yes" for sex (actual consent) and still not get legal consent. That point is made explicitly clear multiple times in the analysis of this case.

find a trial case that says the girl said yes, and it didn't count for legal consent. The onus is on you. Keep minors and retards out pls.

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

Lithose_sl said:
It makes reference to "sexual intercourse"--which has a specific meaning (Which might vary by state). You may perceive "sexual intercourse" as "any sexual contact", but thelawmight requirepenetrationto be sexual intercourse (This is literally why we have lawyers, legal definitions might vary a large degree from every day usage--usually the standards are much higher and more exact). Notice how the law is written VERY carefully to only reference sexual intercourse and not a more vague term, like sexual contact? I'm not sure on California's terms, but in the few states I've read about, sexual intercourse requirespenetration. It USED to require penetration of the penis; but has since changed to any penetration (Fingers, Tongue ect.) The example here is Connecticut.

Now, I haven't researched it thoroughly so I'm not going to say I'm absolutely certain--it's just what I've read from a few sources. I'm not sure if "sexual intercourse" counts if the man is forced to penetrate, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I think you'd need to research case law on it. I am fairly positive up until a few decades ago, it was absolutely impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what the circumstances.

Oddly enough, all that's coming up is Connecticut:
2005 Connecticut Code - Sec. 53a-65. Definitions.

(2) "Sexual intercourse" means vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio or cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex. Its meaning is limited to persons not married to each other. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse or fellatio and does not require emission of semen. Penetration may be committed by an object manipulated by the actor into the genital or anal opening of the victim's body.

But yeah, requiring penetration for sexual intercourse doesn't mean the victim of rape has to be the one getting penetrated. At least not according to anything I've found yet.

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
find a trial case that says the girl said yes, and it didn't count for legal consent. The onus is on you. Keep minors and retards out pls.

People v. Ing
65 Cal. 2d 603

Girl says yes: Check
Didn't count for legal consent: Check
No minors or retards: Check

Yes, I suppose your criteria should have been more specific.

Edit: By the way, dude, you're being completely ridiculous. I don't have to find an example of someone breaking a law to prove that something is illegal. All I have to do is find legal documentation clearly stating that said action is illegal,and I did. Get over it, already.

Cad · Jul 4, 2014

Tanoomba, how do you not get that we've been saying all along that consent can be invalid if the person is incapacitated enough? (I know why, because you're trolling, so you're just ignoring what we're actually saying to say the same bullshit over and over, but anyway) All of the cases you're finding support our position. The case you just found is a doctor who used some injectable anesthetic on a woman in order to have sex with her. You really using that to equate with chicks getting willfully drunk at a party? Really?

We want you to find cases so you can see how real courts apply the standards. The standards and how they are applied are the absolute crux of the issue. Now that you understand that "reasonable judgment" has to be removed from the person in order to be too intoxicated to consent, you ought to be able to see how incapacitated a person has to be. But you don't, because you're either trolling, or retarded. You keep saying "rational decisions" over and over even though the cases say reasonable judgment. Those two things are not the same.

Rational decision implies some kind of correctness to your logic - your decision was objectively rational, etc. And applying that rationality to the decision means basically that "the person was making correct decisions" which probably means they were mostly sober, although people can be irrational stone sober. Under your standard, any time someone is acting out of the ordinary, they'd be unable to consent. Under the actual standard, reasonable judgment, the person just has to be exercising some judgment regarding their situation. They could be totally whacked out, and decide for themselves that yes, having group sex with these 4 guys is perfectly reasonable. Ok. But they did consider the situation, and they did use their judgment. The intoxication has to more or less prevent them from resisting, and the standard used says that preventing resistance means that they weren't able to exercise reasonable judgment as to the consent.

Do you not understand why I keep saying you're wrong? You apply the wrong standards to the wrong situations, then you jump to conclusions and make blanket statements about situations that the standards do not apply to. You apply things that only kinda-sorta work for a completely different area of law and then apply them to criminal law as if there's a lot of overlap. You read cases and interpret them incorrectly, and make blanket and far-reaching statements that are incorrect and way past the scope of the case.

Then you come at me and try to say I'm a terrible lawyer when I've been schooling you on the law this whole fucking thread? You're a joke dude. Nothing but a bad troll. You're lucky this is in screenshots, trolling is pretty much standard in here.

Tanoomba · Jul 4, 2014

Here we go (spoilered for length):

Cad_sl said:
Tanoomba, how do you not get that we've been saying all along that consent can be invalid if the person is incapacitated enough?

How do I know?This is how I know.

Cad_sl said:
All of the cases you're finding support our position. The case you just found is a doctor who used some injectable anesthetic on a woman in order to have sex with her. You really using that to equate with chicks getting willfully drunk at a party? Really?

Yes, really. It's the same law that has been broken. A person was too whacked out on drugs to know what was going on and somebody took advantage of that person. It makes no legal difference whether said drugs were taken of one's own volition or not.

Cad_sl said:
Rational decision implies some kind of correctness to your logic - your decision was objectively rational, etc. And applying that rationality to the decision means basically that "the person was making correct decisions" which probably means they were mostly sober, although people can be irrational stone sober. Under your standard, any time someone is acting out of the ordinary, they'd be unable to consent. Under the actual standard, reasonable judgment, the person just has to be exercising some judgment regarding their situation. They could be totally whacked out, and decide for themselves that yes, having group sex with these 4 guys is perfectly reasonable. Ok. But they did consider the situation, and they did use their judgment. The intoxication has to more or less prevent them from resisting, and the standard used says that preventing resistance means that they weren't able to exercise reasonable judgment as to the consent.

These are the words of a desperate man grasping at straws. Everybody knew damn well what I meant when I said "incapable of making rational decisions" and you know it.

Cad_sl said:
Do you not understand why I keep saying you're wrong?

Of course I do. Because you're terrified of a world where a man could be charged with rape after getting a "Yes" from a really drunk girl, almost as much as you're terrified of the idea of a feminist "beta" being right about something. It's the same mentality exercised by the majority of posters on this thread (none of whom had issue with "incapable of making rational decisions", by the way). It's arguing for chest-beating rights, like every other argument I ended up being right about.

Cad_sl said:
You apply the wrong standards to the wrong situations, then you jump to conclusions and make blanket statements about situations that the standards do not apply to. You apply things that only kinda-sorta work for a completely different area of law and then apply them to criminal law as if there's a lot of overlap. You read cases and interpret them incorrectly, and make blanket and far-reaching statements that are incorrect and way past the scope of the case.

I did none of that shit. I refer you again tohere, where I could not have made my case clearer again and again and again.

Cad_sl said:
Then you come at me and try to say I'm a terrible lawyer when I've been schooling you on the law this whole fucking thread? You're a joke dude. Nothing but a bad troll. You're lucky this is in screenshots, trolling is pretty much standard in here.

I apologize. You're not a terrible lawyer. You're not a lawyer at all. A lawyer would know that a person is sometimes not capable of giving legal consent, even if they can give actual consent. A lawyer would not deny said fact until legal definitions, prosecutor guides, AND case law forced him to acquiesce. A lawyer would know how prosecutors go about proving whether or not someone was capable of giving legal consent instead of blurting "How would you prove that? What would you do?" (see linked post). A lawyer wouldn't make statements like "If she even remembers what happened, she wasn't too drunk to consent" that simply are not necessarily true. A lawyer would have taken issue with the semantics of "capable of making rational decisions" the first time it was uttered instead of insisting nothing short of unconsciousness or inability to speak is a prerequisite for rape to occur. A lawyer would understand the difference between "something you would only do when drunk/stoned" and "something you would only do when you're so fucked you don't know what's going on". A lawyer would have known about penal code 261(a)(3) without needing someone else to find it for him.

Now, maybe you're a fine importer of farm equipment or retail manager of a high-end shoe store. I have no way of knowing. But there's no way you're a lawyer, dude. The gig is up. If anything, this is a great relief, since the idea of a lawyer practicing with this level of incompetence is very unnerving. Fuck, this thread alone could probably get you disbarred. Luckily, your carpet-steaming business (or whatever) is safe.

Lendarios · Jul 4, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
People v. Ing
65 Cal. 2d 603

Girl says yes: Check
Didn't count for legal consent: Check
No minors or retards: Check

Yes, I suppose your criteria should have been more specific.

Edit: By the way, dude, you're being completely ridiculous. I don't have to find an example of someone breaking a law to prove that something is illegal. All I have to do is find legal documentation clearly stating that said action is illegal,and I did. Get over it, already.

Can you quote from there, the part where the girl says yes? Also she was given the drug not to have sex but for a specific medical purpose. Not for social interaction, but within the confounds of a medical care.
It is expected by any person who is going to a medical procedure that requires anesthesia, not to be raped while incapacitated.

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff

Tranny Chaser

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

Eeyore Enthusiast

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

Buzzfeed Editor

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff