PC Principal thread

[Infini]

Oh fuck off. My unwillingness to call someone a piece of shit based on hearsay is not something to be ashamed of. More people should strive to be like me. We might have fewer innocent people rotting in jail for 30 years before they get exonerated by DNA evidence.

Going by the testimony that was posted and it looking like he was trying to weasel out of it, that does paint a stronger picture of him taking advantage of the victim and deserving everything he gets tho. One thing tho is in these cases where alcohol is involved is the murkyness caused by it. Your thinking aint wrong tho its never good to rely on hearsay or obscure information as it can be catastrophic if its wrong. Theres cases for example where a woman has claimed rape against a main in the case where alcohol is involved only for it to turn out that the alleged perpertrator didnt do it. Even accusation alone can destroy peoples lives when they didnt do it or were too incapaciated to remember.

[kuronosan]

Yea and in those cases there probably aren't two sober people physically intervening to stop the rape. Fuck.

[Moss]

are you tho

I shouldn't be apparently.

I've seen enough of these "what if they're both drunk" shitfests before so I'm going to extricate myself now

[Tarage]

This entire thing would be solved if we all had to wear combination chastity belts. Too drunk to undo your belt, no sex for you.

Also you piss yourself.

[Zetanio]

It'd be solved if we brought the fucking patriarchy. Amirite?

[Cream Soda]

Everybody keeps saying that she was found unconscious with the guy literally on top of her, but I can't find any witness quotes/testimony saying the same thing. Only lame articles that present hearsay as facts, the kinds that keep calling him a rapist even though he was convicted of sexual assault, not rape. Clearly they aren't unbiased sources of information. The only thing I've heard as far as testimony is the guy saying he was stumbling out of the alley and he got stopped by two cyclists. If anybody can find me a quote directly from the cyclists saying that they found him literally on top of her, and that she was actually unconscious, I'm willing to change my mind about this. Until then, it seems just as, if not more, plausible that the cyclists came upon a shady-looking situation, aggressively white-knighted to protect someone they thought might have just gotten raped, and a drunk guy saw two angry people causing him to think "I'm about to get my ass kicked" so he tried to run.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06...ord-rape-case/

Someone posted the text, but in case you need to hear him say it for yourself

[Gredival]

How exactly is a drunk person supposed to measure equal levels of drunkenness lol? Plus if we accept that one isn't cognitive enough to consent while drunk then how can we accept one is cognitive enough to judge consent while drunk?

I was imprecise with the wording. The issue I'm getting at is that if both parties are drunk enough such that they cannot render effective consent when they initiate intercourse, neither party has consent. And neither party is excused from not obtaining consent since voluntary intoxication is not a defense in rape since it does not require a specific mens rea.

This is specific to the legal conception of rape of course. There are obviously degrees of difference between a rape in this sense, where two drunk people get it on as "willingly" as their inebriated states permit them to consent (especially if the parties don't regret it in the morning), and a guy who tries to score on a unconscious girl.

Seems like an odd case from what I'm seeing. Ultimately comes down to the amount of drink involved etc. Obviously the girl is the victim but at the same time HOW drunk was the dude? If hes drunk so much that his own judgment is completely FUBAR doesnt that change the field of play? Would this person actually do this normally if not drunk or completely out of character for that person?

Thats where it gets murky from what I could see because its one thing when the perpetrator is lucid enough to be maliciously and opperunitically taking advantage of an incapacitated woman (in which case the perp deserves everything including the kitchen sink thrown at em) but if the perpertrator is at a point where he's so drunk to be no longer in a competent state of mind what then? Thats the difficult thing to see.

The only thing with these cases is that its usually woman = victim, man = predatory asshole and most of the time thats right but when alcohol is involve it gets messy. One of the things that could be obverved from something like this is never get so drunk as to be completely out of it the end result of this is two ruined lives.

See above. Legally speaking, voluntary intoxication is not a defense in rape to my knowledge. There are only a few specific crimes where the prosecution has to prove intent to commit that very crime as a necessary element. For most crimes, the fact that you didn't mean to do it or didn't know you were doing it is not exculpatory.

Philosophically it's a more complicated issue. You can argue that you aren't in your right mind, but what does it say about you such that when your judgment is impaired that you would do something like try score some action on a girl that's passed out? Because I'm pretty sure there are some people that will get blitzed out of their mind and still not do that.

They were definitely both drunk, and this conversation has been hashed out a hundred times in the feminism thread. The concept of rape becomes a horrible mess when people start drinking, but it's stupid to take the perspective that "legal consent" should have any bearing in a normal social interaction.

We are talking about a CRIME evaluated by LEGAL standards. How is "legal consent" not relevant?

[zoobernut]

Isn't a case of apologising just a musing at what point is one no longer competent of one's actions with alcohol involved. I mean you got cases of people being murdered and the perpetrator getting off due to insanity for example. From what I gleaned so far the woman was completely incapacitated and vunerable (and thank fuck those 2 guys came along when they did) and the dude was punch drunk but not sure wether he was competent enough to be actually malicious or was out of a competent state of mind.



Yeah I noticed he was convicted of sexual assualt not rape and the information thats going around isn't exactly helpful. If he was lucid enough to know what he was doing then as I said before he deserves everything he gets but when alcohol is involved (and I'm from a place where binge drinking is certainly a problem) thats what murkies up the whole thing as things get more difficult to judge.

Sexual assault is the legal term for rape iirc no one is ever convicted of rape exactly. Also did you seriously just compare an insanity defense to a "I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing" defense? You know people don't have a choice on being insane but they do have a choice to drink right?

[dasva]

Sexual assault is the legal term for rape iirc no one is ever convicted of rape exactly.

There actually is a difference. Think the exact verbiage depends on the state (like I think some the 2 are the same) but generally speaking rape is unwanted penetration (which ends up making most cases of women abusing men "not count") while sexual assault is generally any unwanted sexual contact.

And quick look says yeah definitions/differences vary a decent amount between states

[archibaldcrane]

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11888042...gal-difference

I'm not sure whether he never actually got his dick into her or they didn't have enough evidence to bring that charge, so they just got him on the fingerbanging (penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object) that he admitted to.

[zoobernut]

Got it thanks for the links.

[Brill Weave]

Popped in, shit show here as always. Carry on.

[BaneTheBrawler]

there's not enough food tho

hah. i laughed.

[Moss]

Because I'm pretty sure there are some people that will get blitzed out of their mind and still not do that.

read: billions of people throughout history

he was also sober enough to notice people approaching and attempt to run from them, so calling him anything beyond "drunk" is a stretch for me

[Headspace]

Seems like an odd case from what I'm seeing. Ultimately comes down to the amount of drink involved etc. Obviously the girl is the victim but at the same time HOW drunk was the dude? If hes drunk so much that his own judgment is completely FUBAR doesnt that change the field of play? Would this person actually do this normally if not drunk or completely out of character for that person?
.

This is a great DUI defense. So drunk the guy doesn't know what he's doing and therefore less culpable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xno Kappa]

I see the Brock case has been posted and blubb doing what blubb does best.

[Marootsoobutsu]

We are talking about a CRIME evaluated by LEGAL standards. How is "legal consent" not relevant?

Because the legal standards are bullcrap.

Never been drunk (never had a full drink), but I detest the idea that being drunk/buzzed is enough to say you can't give consent. I'm generally not in favor of being drunk being any excuse for not being in control of your actions: if you're old enough to get drunk, you're old enough to accept the consequences of what you do while drunk.

This does not mean that "Drunk = wants it"-- you can say no. And obviously, passed out drunk is no consent given. But the legal standard of "If you're drunk you can't give consent" is totally anathema to the human experience. I personally think you're an enormous jerk if you go trolling sober for drunk chicks, but putting it in the same category as rape is offensive on more levels than I can name.

[archibaldcrane]

Thanks for acknowledging your complete lack of perspective.

[Gredival]

I'm generally not in favor of being drunk being any excuse for not being in control of your actions: if you're old enough to get drunk, you're old enough to accept the consequences of what you do while drunk.

Which is precisely why voluntary intoxication is not an exculpatory for the vast majority of crimes.

This does not mean that "Drunk = wants it"-- you can say no.

The problem is that is how people treat it though. Just keep funneling drinks until that wall of resistance crumbles, because it's easier to get a yes to "Another round?" than it is to "Hey let's knock boots."

And obviously, passed out drunk is no consent given.

But wasted just enough that the alcohol overrides previous judgment without causing a loss in consciousness is A-Okay?

But the legal standard of "If you're drunk you can't give consent" is totally anathema to the human experience. I personally think you're an enormous jerk if you go trolling sober for drunk chicks, but putting it in the same category as rape is offensive on more levels than I can name.

Then what standard do you suggest, or do you not care enough to address the problem of people engaging in predatory behavior?

People have a problem thinking of rape as anything besides forcing a protesting girl down and taking her without consent. While that is arguably the most horrible instance of rape, the key is the lack of consent not the force.

That's why statutory rape exists; it's our belief that at certain age differences, there is no consent because one party is likely being predatory. With well documented Romeo and Juliet exceptions, that's probably true.

The legal standard finds you accountable whenever you bypass consent, including inducing it through substance. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

[Marootsoobutsu]

The problem is that is how people treat it though. Just keep funneling drinks until that wall of resistance crumbles, because it's easier to get a yes to "Another round?" than it is to "Hey let's knock boots."

A dude who does that is absolute trash as a human being (as is a gal who plies a dude with drinks for the same purpose). I honestly do not know that it should be illegal, however. I spent a lot of time in bars when single-- pub trivia ftw-- but since I never drank, I was always the designated driver. I was *also* the person who saved friends from bad decisions. I'm not sure that's an unreasonable expectation to have. If you're going to go to a bar, and you're going to drink, have that friend who A) isn't drinking, and B) pulls you back from regrettable decisions. This not only prevents regrettable decisions-- it should be a safety guard against the guys who will use drunk-unable-to-be-in-your-right-mind to get laid. Again-- those guys are *scum*. But I don't think that someone who *gives* agency away is the same as someone who has it *forced* away, or someone who was never able to give consent under any circumstances-- the unconscious, the under-aged, or those mentally incapable regardless of sobriety. Unwilling intoxication is a different issue, as well.

But wasted just enough that the alcohol overrides previous judgment without causing a loss in consciousness is A-Okay?

Morally? No. It's incredibly scummy, but I don't think everything that's immoral or unethical should be illegal. This is one of those places where, if we're trusting you to be an adult, you need to take precautions or accept the potential consequences of your actions. If *YOU* go out drinking, and *YOU* get drunk, and *YOU* keep drinking, and *YOU* didn't bring a safety-net, then no, I don't think someone else-- even someone being an immoral turd-basket-- is responsible. You gave consent to drink *KNOWING* it can lower your resistance to giving bad consent later. It's not that I don't care-- it's that I also care about your autonomy as a person, and think you should deal with the consequences of your choices, not be sheltered from them.

Then what standard do you suggest, or do you not care enough to address the problem of people engaging in predatory behavior?

A person who A) does not give consent to either sex *or* intoxication who then has sex (roofied, etc...), or who B) is legally *always* incapable of providing consent, or C) a person who is unconscious. If you're drunk, and you chose to get drunk, it's on you, period. Everything you do. If you're passed out drunk, you aren't giving consent; if you're drunk, and conscious, I don't care if you're buzzed or you're black-out-drunk: if you give consent, you gave consent. Children clearly fall outside this (legally always incapable of providing consent), those who are intoxicated against their will fall outside.

People have a problem thinking of rape as anything besides forcing a protesting girl down and taking her without consent. While that is arguably the most horrible instance of rape, the key is the lack of consent not the force.

In the case of adults who are of sound mind (not insane, not mentally deficient), the only way sex can be obtained without their consent is through force. I don't think it's in the form of the guy jumping out of the bushes and holding a gun to a strangers head, and I *definitely* believe that there are a *LOT* of women (and men) who get drunk-raped-- they are saying no, but they are too inebriated to fight someone off, so there are no physical signs of a struggle. I do not blame them at all-- they should be protected from that kind of thing every bit as much as a sober person should be.

That's why statutory rape exists; it's our belief that at certain age differences, there is no consent because one party is likely being predatory. With well documented Romeo and Juliet exceptions, that's probably true.

It's not just because that person is being predatory-- it's because that child isn't capable of providing consent *under any circumstances*. Other people are still legally responsible for him or her, and to a degree their actions if it falls under negligence. That kid cannot legally consent to get drunk and lower their inhibitions, because they are not allowed to have sex *period*, sober, inebriated (which they aren't really legally allowed to be, either). If you want to push that predatory behavior like super-drunking a person until they consent is illegal, I think that law would be wrong, but I disagree with a lot of laws. Where I find it offensive, though, is calling that rape. It. Is. Not. Rape. Because the key component *IS* force. It is having consent *TAKEN* from you-- it's not giving it away, it is having it *TAKEN*. That is what makes rape horrible. I'm not hypothesizing; I'm remembering. You don't get to give away your will to say "No", and call that the same thing as someone who had their ability *TAKEN* from them. It 100% absolutely is the *FORCE*. It doesn't have to be at a gun point. It can be with roofies. It can just be getting someone so drunk that they can't fight you off when they do say no. It is someone depriving you of the ability, and I adamantly and entirely refuse to accept the same term for someone who *VOLUNTARILY* gave that away, and calls it rape. That is an insult, it is a diminishment.

The legal standard finds you accountable whenever you bypass consent, including inducing it through substance. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

Fine; it's still not rape. It's not morally okay, it's something I would never do, and would never knowingly allow a friend to do, but it's not rape. Calling it rape diminishes the experience of those who have been raped, and it diminishes the agency of able-bodied adults who make (sometimes) regrettable decisions.