Help
FORUMS › General Discussions › Open Forum › WTF
TOPIC: WTF
« Prev  1 ...  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  ... 555  Next »
581 to 590 of 5542
User Details are only visible to members.
yeah i got that. i just wanted to point out that it's not only women: it's also men, children, and seniors who are included in the "consent" issue for rape cases.

the decision to allow the defense for excluding BAC test results is BSC but that's JMO.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(9656 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"and likely to make many see red."

I think that'll be because people aren't understanding what he's saying. He might have used this example purposefully to see who would fall into the mindtrap.

He's saying that if intoxication is an established reason to render people incapable of giving consent for sex, it should be a reason to negate consent for anything.

However, there is a funny area here where we hold some people responsible for their actions while not holding others.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24404 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
whoaaaa tbr.

gettung behind the wheel of a lethal weapon and driving while intoxicated and driving that lethal weapon is wayyyyy different than being on a date (or not), having a drink or two, and *being* raped.

"incapable of consent" in rape cases applies equally to men.

it also applies to seniors and people who have diminished mental capacity.

the folks who said "yes" to testing in DWI or DUI cases did so erroneously thinking it would keep them from getting arrested. IIRC, if you refuse a breathalyzer--that can mean an automatic arrest/trip to the police station.

that's not an apples to apples comparison--and likely to make many see red.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(9656 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I think the difference here is that the woman wasn't charged with drinking and sexing.

While I understand your point, I would think that while being able to throw out the breathalyzer result, one finds it inescapable to conclude that the defendant was not intoxicated.

"You can't prove he's intoxicated because he's too intoxicated to consent to your analysis."

It's like saying someone is too stupid to be a moron, too tall to be a giant, too fat to be obese, etc.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24404 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well, if women are unable to consent to sex because they are intoxicated, and can bring rape charges against their "assailant" even if they consented while drunk, why shouldn't the court come down with this decision?

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(19327 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
@Sinbach: Too many fakes and picture collectors. Some people are all talk and no action so you do have better luck in a lot of cases on other sites. I had a guy hit me up this morning say he "saw me looking all good in the gym." He said we spoke to each other but I don't remember. He's cute too and in shape I might add.

Vero Beach FL
Username hidden
(7419 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
same conclusion: juries can be remarkably dumb.

;)

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(9656 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well, it bears remembering sometimes that courts are supposed to make their judgments based upon the law and the evidence presented, not their gut. Sometimes the result is not what we like.

Juries are notoriously dumb, mostly because they make it too easy to exclude jurors. Often, people with jobs are left out because their service would be a "hardship". People with advanced degrees are excluded because they have "preconceived notions".

So after excluding smart people and employed people, you're left with dumb, retired or unemployed people. Mrs. VA was excluded from a jury over a lead poisoning case because she was a nurse married to a chemist and thus would make her own conclusions based on education rather than the court proceedings.

Of course this isn't always the way, but....

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24404 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
i was flabbergasted to find out that they acquitted based on that argument.

my question: would you want that dude on the road with *you* in the condition he was in when this arrest was made?

changed the minds of the 2 holdouts in our case.

people can be remarkably dumb -- a jury of peers can be bad as much as good.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(9656 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"they bought the defense's argument that he failed the breathalyzer because of his tobacco chaw"

I consulted (when I was a chemist - as a favor to a friend who was a lawyer) on a legal case where a defendant's lawyer claimed that his positive (via LC-MS) opiate test was a result of taking pseudoephedrine for a cold.

This is laughably preposterous. I won't go into the details here - but I assure you, it is. Jury, however, bought it.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24404 posts)
« Prev  1 ...  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  ... 555  Next »
581 to 590 of 5542
TOPIC: WTF
This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.
All Members are over 18 years of age.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
 
Copyright © 1998-2016 DashBoardHosting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.