Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,984
- 79,590
Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...
- Thread starter Balthazar_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
...He says, as if there were anythingbutinsufferable cunts in this thread.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
U r a cunt because even when we quote u when u admit been wrong, u reply with with "guy I was only wrong for x days". Or worse, point to the difference and say u were right after changing up opinion.
Let's test you.
A woman goes to the police, and claims the following. I went out with my girls to drink, I got really drunk, the last thing I remember is going home with this guy I just met. The next thing I remember it was the next morning and it was obvious we had sex. Please charge him with rape."
You ask the guy and he corroborates the sex part, and claims the girl consented to it.
What do you do tanoomba? Charge the guy, or not?
Let's test you.
A woman goes to the police, and claims the following. I went out with my girls to drink, I got really drunk, the last thing I remember is going home with this guy I just met. The next thing I remember it was the next morning and it was obvious we had sex. Please charge him with rape."
You ask the guy and he corroborates the sex part, and claims the girl consented to it.
What do you do tanoomba? Charge the guy, or not?
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
There is no evidence of rape. There is a reasonable standard that must be meet prior to an arrest been made. On this case there is no evidence, only allegations, for any jurisdiction in the US, that is not enough for an arrest.
For all you know she could have consented, as her own statement is "I don't remember what happened".
How does the case presented contradicts the guys version? If she would have said, "I was aware and I never consented to it". Then he will get charged, but that is not the hypothetical presented.
For all you know she could have consented, as her own statement is "I don't remember what happened".
How does the case presented contradicts the guys version? If she would have said, "I was aware and I never consented to it". Then he will get charged, but that is not the hypothetical presented.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
It's hilarious that you think you have some authority to "test me", but I'll humor you anyway (even though I'm going to have to take shit for "responding to stupid people's posts").
If the woman believes she was raped, she can accuse the man of rape. You say "For all you know, she could have consented", but as we have seen, saying "Yes" doesn't count as legal consent if she was incapable of sound judgment. Therefore, she doesn't actually have to remember whether or not she gave actual (not legal) consent. Her lawyer would have to build a case that proved she was not capable of sound judgment and that the man was aware of her condition when he had sex with her. Refer to the prosecutor's guide I linked to ages ago to see how the prosecutor would go about doing that. If there is enough evidence that shows she was not capable of sound judgment when they had sex, then the man is found guilty of rape. If there is not enough evidence, then the man is found not guilty.
I'm not sure what kind of problem you could have with that, but I'm sure you'll tell me soon.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,042
Its not sound judgment, its reasonable judgement. She just has to have been able to reasonably apply her judgment to the consequences of consent. Her judgment on that issue doesn't have to be "sound" (it often is not "sound", even sober.) This is the subtle distinction you've been missing the whole time, and are apparently still missing because you continue to misstate the standard.
The misstating of the standard and your application of it is the whole reason I've been saying you're wrong.
And that standard is for California by the way, which actually has an intoxicated sexual assault statute. Other states might (likely are) different.
As far as the rest of the process. If a woman feels she has been raped, she will notify the police. The police will take her statement and determine if there is probable cause for a warrant either to search for evidence or to arrest the suspect, and then file charges. Once charges are filed, a magistrate determines whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the suspect (this is usually a non-event). Then the DA takes over and can either take the evidence to a grand jury who will decide whether to indict the suspect for the charged crimes, or no-bill. The suspect can opt for an examining trial in lieu of the grand jury, in which case a judge will listen to the prima facie evidence the DA/police can put on, and determine if there is sufficient evidence to hold the suspect over for trial. Once they are held over for trial they will have trial dates set and usually have evidentiary hearings between the time of indictment and the time of trial. So there are several procedural safeguards but most of these the standard of evidence is very low, and the defendant puts on no evidence/rebuttal. Only at trial can the suspect defend himself and rebut prosecution evidence.
Also the prosecution would need to prove more than just lack of consent; there are multiple elements to the crime of rape. For example you'd have to prove sexual contact took place at all. This might be harder to prove than you might think, especially in intoxication cases. If the woman was too intoxicated to consent, she'd probably also have a very hard time identifying her attacker. Nevertheless, all elements must be proven.
Crim law 101 over
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Listen, dude, every single person here (including you) understands "sound judgment" just fine. I understand that "words have meanings", and I understand that if I was a prosecutor I'd have to be very careful to use the correct terminology, butyouhave to understand that context dictates meaning, and that successful communication takes its audience into account. Did the audience understand what was being said? Yes? Communication successful!
If your problem with me was that I said "able to make rational decisions" or "sound judgment" instead of "reasonable judgment", then we're just talking semantics. You're going to tell me you ranted and raved and spouted vitriol for pages and pages over semantics?
Besides, you were the one that said "If she even remembers what happened, she wasn't too drunk to consent" which is simply not necessarily true. Will you admit that now?
You also provided this little gem:
This demonstrates a shocking lack of knowledge of legal procedure in rape cases. We prove there was no consent by building a case that the victim was not capable ofrational judgment(you're welcome). This can be done by identifying certain types of behavior she displayed that night, corroborated by anyone who was around while she was drunk. THAT'S what we would investigate. The guide I linked that you scoffed at goes into much more detail. Wouldn't a lawyer know this?Cad_sl said:
If it's something you would ONLY do when you're too smashed to have any idea what you're doing, then you didn't give consent. A lawyer would know this.Cad_sl said:
You'll notice I'm giving you a pass on your claim that "Taking advantage of a woman's drunkenness isn't rape, absent force or her being unconscious/incapacitated." Even though these words suggest being unable to move or act in any way, and EVEN THOUGH you yourself said "if someone is drunk to the point of unconsciousness, or drunk beyond speech, etc, they can't consent" (ignoring cases where someone is conscious and capable of speech but incapable of giving legal consent), I'll still give you a pass because, legally, "incapacitated" means "deprived of the legal power to act in a specified way or ways" which can include being conscious and capable of speech. Personally, I don't even think you realized that, but whatever.
TLDR: You claim I was wrong because I didn't specifically say "reasonable judgment". I claim you were wrong because you said "If she remembers, she wasn't too drunk", you had no idea how these types of rape cases are investigated, and you think you are capable of giving legal consent for something you would never do when you are off-your-tits drunk.
Right?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,042
Words do have meanings
In a legal context words have very specific meanings
The meanings have nuances you are ignoring
I am correcting you.
If by semantics you mean, you were completely misstating the entire standard in order to make your "drunk = rape" argument, then sure. I would argue thats not semantics, its you being stupid and constructing a strawman, but whichever you like.
Eh, I'd say its pretty close. It's probably slightly over-dramatizing the standard, but if they are intoxicated enough (via alcohol) to not be able to exercise reasonable judgment, its also very likely they won't remember what happened.
Idiot, how would she even know she had sexual intercourse or with whom? And my hypothetical said NO WITNESSES. So how does she ask anyone around? Learn to read.
Nice strawman. I didn't say I'd "ONLY do it when I'm too smashed to have any idea what I'm doing". I said "Just because its something I can't picture myself doing doesn't mean I wouldn't do it when drunk/stoned/whatever." For example, when your harpoon-wielding father speared your fat greasy mother and happened to find her sloppy hole and impregnate her to make you, he must have been high as fuck. Otherwise who could explain it? I guess that was rape too.
There's nothing wrong with my statement. Taking advantage of drunkenness isn't rape...assuming she can exercise reasonable judgment as to the consequences of sex, which she probably can unless she's practically unconscious or incapacitated. Pretty much exactly what I said. Also I think most states other than California probably have a more strict definition of intoxication consent, California is actually pretty victim friendly. Other states require virtual unconsciousness. I know you don't understand the actual law. It's ok.
No, I claim you were wrong because you're wrong, and you're deliberately misstating the standard to construct yet-another strawman for the third time in one reply. Stick to teaching ESL, if you're good at that, because you suck at this.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
Please insufferable cunt, do a control f for the word rational.
CAL. PEN. CODE 261 : California Code - Section 261
You keep thinking words exists, in the law, when they dont.
CAL. PEN. CODE 261 : California Code - Section 261
You keep thinking words exists, in the law, when they dont.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
Suing here is your quote
(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: - See more at:CAL. PEN. CODE 261 : California Code - Section 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: - See more at:CAL. PEN. CODE 261 : California Code - Section 261
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
imagine u are the California DA, will u charge the man and if u do provide which section of the statute u will apply. Number and letter please. Anyone else can join btw.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Awwww.... widdle Caddie's still grumpy because I showed his friends he wasn't a lawyer...
I'm going to continue anyway: Are you curious about getting fucked in the ass? What would be the circumstances under which it could happen, do you think? Because I can personally tell you withgreat confidencethat the only way somebody's getting in my ass is if I'mwell pastthe point of "rational judgment". That's a guarantee. So if I wake up with semen crusted around my asshole, I know I was raped. Maybe you're more open-minded than me when it comes to being anally penetrated. That being the case, sure, maybe you wouldn't necessarily think "rape" if you woke up with cumbutt. Otherwise, this "How do I know I was raped?" argument is worthless.
If I was in court, those "nuances" might be relevant. In an online discussion, not so much. Again, if the intended meaning was understood by the audience, then communication was successful.
"Completely misstating"? Ha ha, you're so pathetic. Also, I don't think you understand what "strawman" means. Please explain how my use of the term "sound judgment" instead of "reasonable judgment" is me constructing a strawman. Please.
Fucking WOW. You never cease to amaze me. The only thing you had against me, theonly fucking thing, was that my word choice (which was more than clear to everyone else) wasn't up to snuff. And yet, you can make a legally inaccurate statement and say "Eh, I'd say it's pretty close." Words have meanings, remember?
I thought we were working off the assumption that there was physical evidence of sex having taken place, but not of force being used. She can wake up nude in bed next to the guy with a sore cootch and sticky sheets. She doesn't need photographic memory to figure out what happened then, right? And when you said "no witnesses", how could I interpret that as anything OTHER THAN "nobody saw them fuck"? After all, them hanging out and drinking is not a crime, right? Learn to write.
Well, thanks for confirming that you are a disgusting person.
I'm going to continue anyway: Are you curious about getting fucked in the ass? What would be the circumstances under which it could happen, do you think? Because I can personally tell you withgreat confidencethat the only way somebody's getting in my ass is if I'mwell pastthe point of "rational judgment". That's a guarantee. So if I wake up with semen crusted around my asshole, I know I was raped. Maybe you're more open-minded than me when it comes to being anally penetrated. That being the case, sure, maybe you wouldn't necessarily think "rape" if you woke up with cumbutt. Otherwise, this "How do I know I was raped?" argument is worthless.
Yeah, dude, you've already agreed with me several times (my use of "sound judgment" notwithstanding). I don't know why you insist on dragging out this conversation.
I'm not deliberately misstating anything. You can change "capable of making rational decisions" into "capable of reasonable judgment" in all my posts and both the intended message and the understood message would remain the same. You're the one trying to play "Vocabulary Gotcha!" here, which is a dishonest way to try to save face after you've already confirmed that I was right. Stick to window installation, if you're good at that, because you suck at this.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
If my client has a case (meaning she has given me reason to believe we should be able to prove she was not capable of reasonable judgment), then why wouldn't I take the guy to court?
That would be section 261.a.3
(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.
We've been through all this before, by the way. I was the one that found the fucking statute, remember?
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
The guy replies, "what she was that drunk, no way man, she seemed just tipsy. Also she didn't resisted anything, in fact she was on top most of the time. She didn't passed out, we just had sex."
So how do you show that he should have known her level of intoxication?
Let me help you out. On my original statement the amnesia the women claims, basically makes it near impossible to call rape. She could have very well done a train of people and since she doesn't remember it, it is hard to claim she wasn't a willing participant.
So how do you show that he should have known her level of intoxication?
Let me help you out. On my original statement the amnesia the women claims, basically makes it near impossible to call rape. She could have very well done a train of people and since she doesn't remember it, it is hard to claim she wasn't a willing participant.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What the fuck, dude? THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION TO ADD. The discussion has been over for weeks for everyone but Lendarios. All I'm doing now is defending myself from your petty and incredibly childish personal attacks. Do you have a problem with that?
Your salary boasts would have more credibility if we had any reason to believe you were actually a lawyer, by the way.