Absolutely.
If you're in a relationship, you should respect her enough that you never have to answer this question.
20 minutes of action?
- Thread starter HeelFan58
- Start date
You didn't answer my question. When she lost consciousness matters, and that's another aspect of the story that's unknowable. If she didn't pass out until just before the two PhD students arrived, it changes the narrative completely.
I think the issue is if she passed out before the act not during it. Theoretically had she not passed out, she could have changed her mind before he started. Regardless I'm not sure why anyone would want to have sex with someone who is unconscious. Takes some of the fun out of it.
I don't know when she lost consciousness and nobody else here does either, so I'm assuming you intended it as a hypothetical question that I didn't really need to answer.
FWIW, I don't think it changes the narrative that much. He took an overly intoxicated girl out behind a dumpster and defiled her with a beer bottle. Whether he was also drunk, whether she was technically conscious when it started, or how long she had been passed out before he was caught in the act of doing so don't really change the fact that it's a case of cut-and-dry, caught-red-handed sexual assault. If we're going to waffle on whether the victim bears responsibility in a case as clear cut as this one, what does that say about our approach to these cases in general?
FWIW, I don't think it changes the narrative that much. He took an overly intoxicated girl out behind a dumpster and defiled her with a beer bottle. Whether he was also drunk, whether she was technically conscious when it started, or how long she had been passed out before he was caught in the act of doing so don't really change the fact that it's a case of cut-and-dry, caught-red-handed sexual assault. If we're going to waffle on whether the victim bears responsibility in a case as clear cut as this one, what does that say about our approach to these cases in general?
That we're willing to look at it openly, and not just assume guilt because that's the way it was portrayed to us in the media?
Or that we won't accept guilt no matter how obvious it may be?
P.S. This has nothing to do with "portrayal in the media." He was CONVICTED of sexual assault in a court of law. Yet here we are having a discussion of whether the victim may have wanted or encouraged it.
P.S. This has nothing to do with "portrayal in the media." He was CONVICTED of sexual assault in a court of law. Yet here we are having a discussion of whether the victim may have wanted or encouraged it.
Last edited:
That was the foreign object? Ugh.
Disagree. I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here, but there's no way to know whether she consented to his use of the beer bottle. No matter how perverse we think that might be, it's reasonably possible that's an accurate version of the event. If she consented and then passed out just before the arrival of the two students then it's not a cut-and-dry case at all. Morally wrong, absolutely, but not necessarily legally wrong.
Was it stated that he defiled her with a beer bottle? Just asking. I just have a hard time understanding the thrill of defiling a woman or anybody with a foreign object.
Well in that case, he must be guilty - there's never been a false conviction in the history of this country.
Right. There are the actual events of the evening, the jury ruling, and the media portrayal, none of which will necessarily align.
Also, I don't think it's fair to portray the questions being asked as victim blaming. That's certainly not my intent.
Legally, a person cannot consent to sex when intoxicated. Obviously that leads to a gray area in some cases, since drunk sex is kind of a thing. But in this case, she was drunk enough to pass out either before or while this was happening to her. I think it's fair to say she was too intoxicated to consent, even if she was conscious.
@JuleZ '02 HEEL 's standoffish nature to considering other possibilities besides 100% rape is why rape cases suck so much, IMO. And I'm not really calling you out Julez because A LOT of jurors in rape cases have your same mindset and it's understandable.
They see a pretty girl who's been traumatized (it's proven that the human brain is conditioned to look at attractive females in a better, more understanding light than, say, an ugly woman or a man) and they immediately dismiss any explanation that could prove innocence or partial innocence for the accused.
Rape cases are too emotionally charged and it often is nothing more than a case of hearsay and "who do you believe." That's why they bother me.....they're such a gray area in an otherwise black and white area (court of law).
They see a pretty girl who's been traumatized (it's proven that the human brain is conditioned to look at attractive females in a better, more understanding light than, say, an ugly woman or a man) and they immediately dismiss any explanation that could prove innocence or partial innocence for the accused.
Rape cases are too emotionally charged and it often is nothing more than a case of hearsay and "who do you believe." That's why they bother me.....they're such a gray area in an otherwise black and white area (court of law).
But that's why this one's such a big deal. It's not a case of who do you believe. It's a case of two witnesses found this guy abusing an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. And physically restrained him when he tried to run away. There is just simply no justification that lessens what this guy did.
But I'm not really calling you out because A LOT of jurors in rape cases have your same mindset and it's understandable. There is a lot of gray area surrounding consent. We talk about what women wear, and how they were drinking, and how many guys they've hooked up with before. None of that changes the fact that what was done to THIS woman was CLEARLY wrong and illegal.
This is the cut-and-dry case, the one where you can throw the book at the offender without worrying about whether it was he-said, she-said, because he was caught red handed. And yet here we are with a lenient sentence and having the same old conversation about whether the victim bears some of the responsibility. She doesn't.
Edited to add: I don't know about the beer bottle. Read it in one of the accounts. But there was a charge involving a foreign object, as well as "digital" rape (his hand). On the ground behind a dumpster. Gross. But yeah, she probably agreed to that. After she fell down, too drunk to walk.
But I'm not really calling you out because A LOT of jurors in rape cases have your same mindset and it's understandable. There is a lot of gray area surrounding consent. We talk about what women wear, and how they were drinking, and how many guys they've hooked up with before. None of that changes the fact that what was done to THIS woman was CLEARLY wrong and illegal.
This is the cut-and-dry case, the one where you can throw the book at the offender without worrying about whether it was he-said, she-said, because he was caught red handed. And yet here we are with a lenient sentence and having the same old conversation about whether the victim bears some of the responsibility. She doesn't.
Edited to add: I don't know about the beer bottle. Read it in one of the accounts. But there was a charge involving a foreign object, as well as "digital" rape (his hand). On the ground behind a dumpster. Gross. But yeah, she probably agreed to that. After she fell down, too drunk to walk.
Last edited:
I can understand why intoxicated consent can be suspect - sometimes when you're really drunk you might not realize what you're saying, or say things you don't mean, etc. Although to play devils advocate, if I get shitfaced and go beat the crap out of someone - I'm still responsible for my actions even though I was drunk/blackout (i.e. being drunk doesn't absolve me from answering for my choices there), so why would a drunk girl not be responsible for her actions of consenting to something?
The other problem I have with not being legally allowed to consent when drunk is that it's not practical. Like I know people said that Beiber and Shady force everyone to sign consent forms and all that prior to partying - but for your average dude, that's just not an option. When people (girls and guys) go to parties, concerts, get-togethers, whatever, sometimes they're hoping (or at least are open to) having some sort of "romantic interaction" we'll call it - if they find the right person there. How ridiculous would it be if we got to the point that every guy (and girl - if we want to strive for true gender equality where females could be prosecuted for "taking advantage of" a drunk guy) would have to carry around a breathalyzer and a consent form every time they thought there might be the possibility they find someone they're interested in "interacting" with? "Sure baby, we can find some place more quiet, just blow into this breathlyzer for me real quick" "Oh, sorry, you're a .09 - we're gonna have to let you chill for awhile til we can get that down" 30 minutes later... "ok cool, so you're a .06 now - just sign these few forms here, and here, and here, and we're good - now we can go somewhere more private".
*To be clear before my hypothetical is jumped on - I'm not saying that this is what happened in this particular case... I'm just using this as an example why the whole "can't consent when drunk" thing isn't as cut and dry as it seems.
I see what you're saying. My point was more in generality, not this specific case. In THIS case, it does look pretty cut and dry..........but you still never know. That's why rape cases are tricky. It ain't like murder where the dude is dead or he isn't; or the money was stolen or it wasn't.
I was unaware of that condition. It appears the law regarding intoxication differs by state, but California law addressed it thus:
(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.
So obviously the jury agreed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant should have known. I haven't read the particulars regarding evidence and testimony, but would guess the defense's case rested on him being so intoxicated himself that he could not reasonably know she was unable to consent, or had lost consciousness, or something similar. That would obviously require a unique set of circumstances, like her not losing consciousness until the two other students arrived as previously mentioned.
All in all the defense's case is a very difficult sell but there's still enough gray area legally that it deserves consideration. I guess that's all I've been trying to say. And full disclosure, I've been drunk enough myself on occasion to do things I didn't remember later and was in horror and disbelief when I found out. Nothing as horrible as rape, but some pretty bone-headed stuff.
Last edited:
Her statement is powerful and well-written. It's long but everybody should read it.
Not sure I've ever poasted sober on Radar tbh.
PR move. He hasn’t been a member for more than a year and he had no chance at making an Olympic team. They just wanted to look good. Maybe they should go ahead and ban Charles Manson, just in case he decided to apply.
Similar threads
