[herbie]

The reason I posted above, is nowhere in the public record does it say HOW INTOXICATED she was when she consented. She SAYS she can't remember. He SAYS she said ok.
You don't know, I don't know.
Before I rush to judgement, I hope the hell the Judge knew. Otherwise 'reasonable doubt' is the law whether some people like it or not.

[Lemmy]

0

[housewife]

Depends on the guilt Lemmy. This sort of thing just proves that it is more than possible to get away with it. There are sick fucks out there taking this ruling as permission.

Reminds me of a teacher in high school he told the girls to be aware of our surroundings to carry our keys between our fingers and to fight back if anyone tried anything. Once the attacker was down to not stop beating on them too he was dead or someone dragged you off. I always figured that it was a ruling like this that had set him off and got us the lecture that was so very far off topic.

I guess that there is a market for the personal "vest cams" for drunk people. Or better friends who won't let them wander away by themselves

[BeaverFever]

On both cases, victims were apparently passed out, so it doesn't matter if she said yes prior to or not. Unconscious means no consent, PERIOD

[martin14]

housewife housewife:

I guess that there is a market for the personal "vest cams" for drunk people. Or better friends who won't let them wander away by themselves

Or how about some personal responsibility to not get blind drunk in the bars in the first place.

Naww, that's asking way too much.

[Public_Domain]

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

housewife housewife:

I guess that there is a market for the personal "vest cams" for drunk people. Or better friends who won't let them wander away by themselves

Or how about some personal responsibility to not get blind drunk in the bars in the first place.

Naww, that's asking way too much.

Sorry Martin, there's no license to rape drunk girls just yet. You'll have to wait for the next Conservative government.

[BeaverFever]

herbie herbie:

The reason I posted above, is nowhere in the public record does it say HOW INTOXICATED she was when she consented. She SAYS she can't remember. He SAYS she said ok.
You don't know, I don't know.
Before I rush to judgement, I hope the hell the Judge knew. Otherwise 'reasonable doubt' is the law whether some people like it or not.

Remember we're not talking about 2 drunk people hookiing up. Let's not forget in these cases we're talking about a woman who is pass-out drunk and a man who is:

- completely sober
- a complete stranger
- working in a position with a duty of care towards the woman

= sexual assault IMO

[Lemmy]

_

[raydan]

NEVER get drunk in a public place, man or woman, that's just looking for trouble... if you want to get drunk, do it at home. Even if you want to believe that bad things shouldn't happen, they do, all too often.

I don't see what attracts men to even try to get a woman drunk to have sex with her, unless the only thing you want is to get off. Sure, it lowers inhibitions, but it's also a sedative. Don't think I've ever had a satisfying sexual experience with a drunk woman, unless I was drunk too and can't remember.

[housewife]

martin14 martin14:

housewife housewife:

I guess that there is a market for the personal "vest cams" for drunk people. Or better friends who won't let them wander away by themselves

Or how about some personal responsibility to not get blind drunk in the bars in the first place.

Naww, that's asking way too much.

It was sorta ment with sarcasm. I think personal responsibility died with common sense.

[housewife]

Lemmy Lemmy:

housewife housewife:

Depends on the guilt Lemmy. This sort of thing just proves that it is more than possible to get away with it. There are sick fucks out there taking this ruling as permission.

Reminds me of a teacher in high school he told the girls to be aware of our surroundings to carry our keys between our fingers and to fight back if anyone tried anything. Once the attacker was down to not stop beating on them too he was dead or someone dragged you off. I always figured that it was a ruling like this that had set him off and got us the lecture that was so very far off topic.

I guess that there is a market for the personal "vest cams" for drunk people. Or better friends who won't let them wander away by themselves

It's not the ruling. It's the nature of the offence. And no one with any brain in their head would tell women to fight back. That's how you turn a sexual assault in a murder. Your last piece of advice is the sound part: don't go home alone.

He was a high school teacher... not saying I agree with him but it's one of the things that stuck with me. He sent the boys to the cafeteria and rambled about personal awareness and killing the attacker.

[Public_Domain]

[herbie]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

On both cases, victims were apparently passed out, so it doesn't matter if she said yes prior to or not. Unconscious means no consent, PERIOD

If the act happened while she was passed out, obviously.
It's sick to want to.
You want to fuck dead fish, I'll PM you my ex's number.

[Lemmy]

+