Where in the article does it say this?Hmm, this dude sounds sick. He stuffed pine needles in her vag??
Are you fvcking serious? That's rapist logic. It's always the one with the greatest power to prevent it who is to blame. You don't fvck a woman whether she's drunk or not without consent, that's the definition of rape. It's not a woman's fault she's getting raped, she does not deserve rape for having a few drinks. They shouldn't have to fear walking around in the dark drunk.Where in the article does it say this?
Troll post. With Troll like.
Drunk Sex is now rape. Regretted Sex is now rape. Feminists contend ALL straight sex is now rape. Instead of teaching men not to rape, teach women not to drink.
2 drunks having sex behind a dumpster... he did not drag her there. You don't think the young woman has any responsibility in this? No of course not, women have no responsibility for their own safety today. Who the hell teaches these young women its ok to walk around drunk at night in a dark alley?
How many maidens?
The left will eat you first.Are you fvcking serious? That's rapist logic. It's always the one with the greatest power to prevent it who is to blame. You don't fvck a woman whether she's drunk or not without consent, that's the definition of rape. It's not a woman's fault she's getting raped, she does not deserve rape for having a few drinks. They shouldn't have to fear walking around in the dark drunk.
This is rape no matter how you twist and turn it. You have no right at all to put your d!ck in their pvssy without their explicit consent. They have absolutely no responsibility for some fvcked up man forcing them down and brutally crossing their boundaries.
If she is too drunk to know what she was doing, then yes. If she isn't too drunk and can reasonably suspected of being aware of what she's doing and capable enough of saying no if she didn't want to, then no it's not rape.Grewd,
So if a drunk couple consents to having sex, and the next day the woman regrets it, does that mean he raped her in your opinion?
She was also clothed when she was discovered... I am sure they ran a rape kit test when she was in the hospital for semen and such, if that came out positive for his semen or DNA being in or near her anus or vagina then I bet this would have been different. I truly want to know the results of that rape kit test... If the media heard that there was a positive rape test, and evidence of penetration I BET THEY WOULD HAVE REPORTED IT. But no such evidence has come to light...I heard about this and this is my opinion on the matter, it's one if those situations where you have to physically be there and hear the case to decide and here is why:
There are pieces that are black and white in the article. Because remember, in cases like these, Jury's do decide what happens to the offender.
The main thing that sticks out to me is that her AGE is not identified. It also states that she is not a student which means she was most likely not of the legal age to drink in the first place. I am no way condoning that kids actions of rape, if he actually did rape her, but in the eyes of the Law, Rape MUST be proven in order for it to be rape.
Innocent until proven guilty.
She stated that:
The woman, who was not a student, told investigators she drank about four shot glasses of whisky before going to the fraternity party, and then drank vodka there. The next thing she said she remembered was waking up at a hospital in San Jose, where a deputy told her she might have been a victim of sexual assault.
She did not remember what had happened. So at that point, the case becomes more of proving(somehow, and I say somehow because how the hell is an attorney going to prove a rape occured if she did not remember anything and there were only 2 witnesses that saw the end result not knowing if she gave consent or not) if a Rape was actually committed.
The whole 'running away when they got him' was the part that landed him the 6 months sentence. They could not convict him of a longer rape sentence because of the victims negligence in being just too damn drunk to provde sufficient details.
"Emotional damage" did not work here as I'm assuming his attorney brought up her never legally allowed being there in the first place.
Morale of the story, if you're caught fvcking a girl then don't run away.
No but really, the main source of evidence, which would be her, can't remember if she gave consent or not. So technically he is being convicted for twice the legal limit of alcohol consumption and the assumed accusation of rape since he ran away from those 2 witnesses.
Very much true, the hospital would have done such test. 'Sexual assault' could have him groping her, we really don't know unless we were there hearing the witnesses stand trial. Rape is a huge crime against humanity and I doubt a swimmer could do it to a RANDOM, which is extremely rare most rapes are by someone you know, underrage girl at a party.She was also clothed when she was discovered... I am sure they ran a rape kit test when she was in the hospital for semen and such, if that came out positive for his semen or DNA being in or near her anus or vagina then I bet this would have been different. I truly want to know the results of that rape kit test... If the media heard that there was a positive rape test, and evidence of penetration I BET THEY WOULD HAVE REPORTED IT. But no such evidence has come to light...
There is no way to ever prove any sexual intercourse isn't consensual. It's word vs. word.Like I said, he's being sentenced for twice the legal blood alcohol limit and sexual assault. Obviously rape, via penetration, could not be proven to either ever happen and if it was, they could not prove it wasn't consensual.
Yes, finally the one and only time I agree with you EyesBRollin...At the very least, he's an idiot for ending up in that situation.
If you say it you must prove it... I have seen nothing of the sort and I spent the last hour reading multiple articles on this case.Hmm, this dude sounds sick. He stuffed pine needles in her vag??
Assume what you want to dipsh!t, you obviously didn't read far or long enough or lack reading skills. The evidence is all there.If you say it you must prove it... I have seen nothing of the sort and I spent the last hour reading multiple articles on this case.
You cannot say something online and expect it to be taken matter-of-fact. That creates misinformation and distorts the facts. In cases like this the facts are important, to distort them is to do something highly unethical.
Thus far I assume you are being a troll with that outlandish BS.
If they're so drunk they're asleep they're obviously incapable of giving consent. I would say it's when they're so drunk they can't remember what happened last night, which means they would have been visibly to others seriously impaired in taking care of themselves.Ok, let's dive one layer deeper.
What is defined as "being aware of what you are doing"? Does that mean so drunk they are asleep? Or does it mean so drunk they can still say yes but shouldn't be driving? Or something else?