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

Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,751
8,192
Araysar_sl said:
The post count is somewhat deceiving, most of my posts are 1 liners. Lithose with his 3,000 posts probably typed out way more compared to me.
Click to expand...
Fair point.

As far as legality is concerned, I think this argument is quite over. It's pretty clear that a judge wants to see a severe level of intoxication to consider rape charges to be valid. It makes sense really. Having a sexual encounter is a deeply intimate and primal act that infringes on your personal space and safety. A person would have to be pretty fucking drunk to not be able to recognize the consequences of sex.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Quaid_sl said:
Fair point.

As far as legality is concerned, I think this argument is quite over. It's pretty clear that a judge wants to see a severe level of intoxication to consider rape charges to be valid. It makes sense really. Having a sexual encounter is a deeply intimate and primal act that infringes on your personal space. A person would have to be pretty fucking drunk to not be able to recognize the consequences of sex.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.

And yet the argument just keeps going...
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,751
8,192
Tanoomba_sl said:
Agree 100%.

And yet the argument just keeps going...
Click to expand...
Well, I think that's because people are confused at what your viewpoint actually is. Either because of a failure to communicate your points effectively, or a shift in your opinion over the course of the argument.

For instance, I myself am quite sure that you were arguing at one point that any level of intoxication on the part of a supposed 'victim' could result in conviction of the accused. If this is not the case, and you were never arguing this, then I apologize. However, I would consider working on your communication skills if you wish to avoid these situations in the future.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
25,641
38,925
Quaid_sl said:
Well, I think that's because people are confused at what your viewpoint actually is. Either because of a failure to communicate your points effectively, or a shift in your opinion over the course of the argument.

For instance, I myself am quite sure that you were arguing at one point that any level of intoxication on the part of a supposed 'victim' could result in conviction of the accused. If this is not the case, and you were never arguing this, then I apologize. However, I would consider working on your communication skills if you wish to avoid these situations in the future.
Click to expand...
No he has chameleon arguments where he cites vague theories and principles and when he gets called out and utterly defeated, he just says 'well actually, I meant that'.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
OK,here's another one.

Girl gets wasted, sleeps with guy. Defense says that the girl was in love with the guy and wanted to sleep with him all along. Girl's friend posts on MySpace: "(victim) got fucked and dumped by (accused)". Circumstantial evidence shows that girl was too far drunk to give legal consent. Incidentally, everything she drank she drank of her own volition. The accused appeals, claiming he didn't know how drunk she was. Court refuses, on the grounds that the accused had referred to the victim as "wasted", implying he knew or should have known how drunk she was.

Again, we don't have actual proof that she said "yes". That's nearly impossible to get in any case. But it has been established that even if she did say "yes", it would not have counted because she was in no condition to give legal consent, through no fault but her own.

Can we call it a day yet? I got video games that need to be played.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Quaid_sl said:
Well, I think that's because people are confused at what your viewpoint actually is. Either because of a failure to communicate your points effectively, or a shift in your opinion over the course of the argument.

For instance, I myself am quite sure that you were arguing at one point that any level of intoxication on the part of a supposed 'victim' could result in conviction of the accused. If this is not the case, and you were never arguing this, then I apologize. However, I would consider working on your communication skills if you wish to avoid these situations in the future.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did shift my opinion over a month ago.

Clarification here.

My apologies for the confusion.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,018
47,104
lendarios_sl said:
The funny part is that tanotard makes fun of Cad been a bad lawyer, when Cad probably makes 5 times more than him
Click to expand...
Shit dude if he's actually an ESL teacher my bonus this year was probably more than 5 times what he makes, nevermind my draws.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,751
8,192
But that's because she was 'wasted' (extremely intoxicated) and it could be shown that the accused actually knew about it. She hadn't just had a couple drinks, which is what you were claiming earlier if I understood correctly.

Edit: just read your above post. Thanks for clarification. Cheers.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
25,641
38,925
Tanoomba_sl said:
OK,here's another one.

Girl gets wasted, sleeps with guy. Defense says that the girl was in love with the guy and wanted to sleep with him all along. Girl's friend posts on MySpace: "(victim) got fucked and dumped by (accused)". Circumstantial evidence shows that girl was too far drunk to give legal consent. Incidentally, everything she drank she drank of her own volition. The accused appeals, claiming he didn't know how drunk she was. Court refuses, on the grounds that the accused had referred to the victim as "wasted", implying he knew or should have known how drunk she was.

Again, we don't have actual proof that she said "yes". That's nearly impossible to get in any case. But it has been established that even if she did say "yes", it would not have counted because she was in no condition to give legal consent, through no fault but her own.

Can we call it a day yet? I got video games that need to be played.
Click to expand...

First rape:
Feeling awkward and dizzy, she sat down on Evelyn's bed, where she resumed kissing minor, but when minor tried to reach for her breast and vagina, M. pushed his hand away three times. M. kept having to catch herself from falling over. She felt she did not know what she was doing and was starting to lose her memory.
Click to expand...
Second rape:
She told him to stop and tried to fight him off, but she was too weak. He forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.
Click to expand...
Go play video games, clearly you aren't cut out to making salient arguments.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Palum_sl said:
First rape:

Second rape:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's her side of the story. The other side of the story is that she was eager to sleep with the guy and was seen both on top of him and hugging him in bed (not signs of resistance). When it's words against words, we go by what can reasonably be proven, and EVERYONE'S words indicated she was too drunk to give legal consent, regardless of who's side of the story is true.

What, you think the guy was found guilty just because shesaidhe forced himself on her?
 
Fedor

Fedor

<Banned>
17,344
47,328
fsTu8Zj.png
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
25,641
38,925
Tanoomba_sl said:
Yeah, that's her side of the story. The other side of the story is that she was eager to sleep with the guy and was seen both on top of him and hugging him in bed (not signs of resistance). When it's words against words, we go by what can reasonably be proven, and EVERYONE'S words indicated she was too drunk to give legal consent, regardless of who's side of the story is true.

What, you think the guy was found guilty just because shesaidhe forced himself on her?
Click to expand...
OK

Based on minor's statement to the police and testimony by both prosecution and defense witnesses, minor witnessed M. drinking heavily that evening.Minor was with M. in the small apartment when, feeling dizzy and awkward, M. had difficulty remaining conscious.M. appeared to be intoxicated. Minor told the police, and D. testified, that minor was not intoxicated; he knew what he was doing. Minor acknowledged he was aware M. was "wasted" when they went to the vacant apartment and had sex. The trial court could reasonably infer from these facts that minor knew or reasonably should have known that M. was intoxicated that night to the point she was unable to make a reasonable judgment about engaging in sexual intercourse with minor.
Click to expand...
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,018
47,104
Thats kind of a weird case because he was appealing the rape in intoxication conviction but not the forcible rape conviction. Also note that his grounds for appeal "lack of evidence for conviction" almost NEVER works, the standard of review for the appeals courts will cast all favor for the trial courts fact finding, and only overturn them in the absolute worst of circumstances.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Tanoomba_sl said:
OK,here's another one.

Girl gets wasted, sleeps with guy. Defense says that the girl was in love with the guy and wanted to sleep with him all along. Girl's friend posts on MySpace: "(victim) got fucked and dumped by (accused)". Circumstantial evidence shows that girl was too far drunk to give legal consent. Incidentally, everything she drank she drank of her own volition. The accused appeals, claiming he didn't know how drunk she was. Court refuses, on the grounds that the accused had referred to the victim as "wasted", implying he knew or should have known how drunk she was.

Again, we don't have actual proof that she said "yes". That's nearly impossible to get in any case. But it has been established that even if she did say "yes", it would not have counted because she was in no condition to give legal consent, through no fault but her own.

Can we call it a day yet? I got video games that need to be played.
Click to expand...
Didn't I ask you to keep minors out? Minor can't give consent the same way as adults. It is like you are a moron and can't read.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Tanoomba_sl said:
Yeah, that's her side of the story. The other side of the story is that she was eager to sleep with the guy and was seen both on top of him and hugging him in bed (not signs of resistance). When it's words against words, we go by what can reasonably be proven, and EVERYONE'S words indicated she was too drunk to give legal consent, regardless of who's side of the story is true.

What, you think the guy was found guilty just because shesaidhe forced himself on her?
Click to expand...
She was 14!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.