Reply With Quote
It's been reported that state law says that someone who's drunk can't legally consent. If that's the case then it's rape no matter how you slice it.
Water under the bridge. The guy was aquitted. Im pretty sure RC, Pop and Holt would not bring any known s bags to our team.
It's been reported that state law says that someone who's drunk can't legally consent. If that's the case then it's rape no matter how you slice it.
Unless he could shoot real good.
Aww tt, that was supposed to be in blue, me hard.
Don't do it bro, don't do it..
I ed that one up.
Setting aside the fact that they were acquitted (in other words, absolutely NOT "rape no matter how you slice it "), that "report" isn't anywhere close to accurate. When you leave out all the qualifiers, you lose the meaning.It's been reported that state law says that someone who's drunk can't legally consent. If that's the case then it's rape no matter how you slice it.
I understand how discussion on the internet works, and the lack of standards people hold themselves to, but we at least ought to try to be a little more discerning when we're dealing with stuff like this.
Stop this spurs type of player nonsense.
signing a gay guy last year and signing a rapist this year should help to cancel each other out.
Being acquitted of a crime doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime, it just means you weren't convicted.
That's a chance you take that you should factor into your decision.
I don't think you understand the difference between acquittal that precludes the state from punishing you for a crime in which you are alleged to have committed, and public opinion.
The law is not perfect. Innocent people go to jail. Guilty people go free. So the law convicting you or setting you free is only conclusive as to whether the state has power to deprive you of your basic liberties.
Public opinion is not restricted to the law.
For that reason, people like OJ can be acquitted of the crime according to the law, but still have public opinion view him as a murderer.
It's not exactly fair if you didn't commit a crime and people don't believe you, despite being acquitted. But that is how the world works and that's why you should try to make decisions that don't get you anywhere near the gray of breaking the law.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your contention that it was "Rape no matter how you slice it." Not only is your understanding of the pertinent law uninformed, the conclusion you drew was clearly erroneous.Being acquitted of a crime doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime, it just means you weren't convicted.Setting aside the fact that they were acquitted (in other words, absolutely NOT "rape no matter how you slice it "), that "report" isn't anywhere close to accurate. When you leave out all the qualifiers, you lose the meaning.
I understand how discussion on the internet works, and the lack of standards people hold themselves to, but we at least ought to try to be a little more discerning when we're dealing with stuff like this.
I think I have a pretty good handle on the legal aspects, thanks. As to the public opinion aspect of this, how does the fact that some people won't hold themselves accountable, or to try to form well-reasoned, objective conclusions, make it any more acceptable?I don't think you understand the difference between acquittal that precludes the state from punishing you for a crime in which you are alleged to have committed, and public opinion.
Just because the National Enquirer is journalism, doesn't mean it should set the standard for journalistic integrity. And just because someone CAN say something, doesn't mean they should.
I'm not suggesting, nor have I suggested, that people shouldn't talk about the subject. I just think they should use a little more discernment than they might when talking about more trivial matters.
Well, instead of canceling each other out, we could have the worst of both worlds. A claim of date rape from one player against another.
The conclusion is absolutely accurate based on the information which I was careful to qualify as I haven't looked up the law myself. If a person in an impaired state cannot consent, then any sexual contact is rape. If you've got information that goes against what was reported about the state law then I'm not sure why you haven't shared it yet. If someone's understanding of the pertinent law is incorrect, you've every green light to inform us.
Note how my post doesn't address your opinion, or any other for that matter since they're quite irrelevant anyway. The reality is that all four of your headless horsemen still walk the street and share every freedom and civil liberty that you and I do. All thanks to the US Justice System.
Translation: If you were accused in the first place you must be guilty, at least in some manner of speaking.
I can play this game too:
Being convicted of a crime doesn't mean you committed a crime, it just means you weren't acquitted.
Now what?
So if you are both drunk then it becomes the guys fault if the girl makes some claim no matter what? I really do not see how that type of law can meet the equal protection standard.
Who's to say she didn't consent and the reason she vomitted was cuz she gagged on it..
tee, hee.
At least he didn't rape her by pretending to be Jewish. That would be a real crime.
Sabbar Kashur, 30, was found guilty of "rape by deception" by the Israeli court and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
According to the complaint filed by the woman, the two met in a Jerusalem street in 2008 and had sex that day.
When she discovered he was not Jewish, but an Arab, she went to the police.
Kashur was arrested and charged with rape and indecent assault, but the charges were later replaced by a different charge of "rape by deception".
You fail to see the difference between reality and legality. If you murder someone and you're aquitted, your victim does not become less dead. You are not a convicted murderer in the legal sense, but you did in fact commit murder. It's the same as the presumption of innocence. That is a legal term, and doesn't apply to the rest of the world.
I've got no dog in this fight, I'm simply pointing out the reality that if the law states that someone in a certain situation is not legally able to consent, then sex with that person is by that law a crime. There are laws exactly like that to protect minors. And as you say, if you are convicted of a crime you didn't commit you're still convicted, and you still didn't do it.
Got it? Good.
All that said, I agree with Fuzzy that I don't see how a law like that would last any length of time before being struck down by a court as uncons utional, so I doubt its very existence. While it's quite easy to prove that someone was underage at the time, the same cannot be said of someone being drunk. Many times cases like that come down to someone's word against someone else's and that's just compounded by a question of consent.
dos santos < naymar
messi should be on the ballon d' or
He was charged, put on trial, and acquitted.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110401163.html
Wow, I learned something new at SZ, I had no idea...
I really hate that I read this post, no matter how hard you try not to pass judgement, It tints that way you see a player.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
