|
|
Holy ****. I've heard some dumb **** before, but this is really stupid. This may belong in the idiot hall of fame. What doctors has this dumb**** been talking to? Dr Seuss? I wonder how much research he really did before opening his ignorant mouth.Originally Posted by Jason
Dumb. ****.
I read it as he thought the bold part of his statement should apply to ****. **** as the "elective procedure", right?
Maybe? Not sure, but the wording sure didn't come out right made me scratch my head
You don't know that she is a victim. And even if she is a victim of ****, that doesn't mean she didn't act stupidly. If you walk down a dark alley where several scary-looking men are standing, at 3 am, while holding $10,000 cash in your hand, it doesn't mean you asked for the robbery, or deserved it, or that they shouldn't be punished for it, but it does mean you acted stupidly.
You know what...that may be the smartest thing I've seen posted on here yet. That is a very, very good point. If you're too drunk to give consent, then the answer is no.
Problem is, that then presents the quandry of "does she really not remember whether or not she gave consent" or whether or not she was too drunk to give consent. You have to be in a position to immediately take a BAC on her and determine if she was cognizant enough. I suppose you could take a BAC at the time of questioning and do a regression (?) on what her BAC could have been at the time of the alleged incident.
This girl has presented a very difficult situation for herself.
The following users like this post: tennsooner
Huh? You can do all sorts of things when you are drunk that you don't remember when you are sober. Does that mean you didn't do them?
If a drunk woman tells a man she wants to have ****, she has consented. If she wakes up the next morning and can't remember whether she gave consent or not, that doesn't mean she didn't.
2 users like EufaulaSooner's post: Brainpimp, tennsooner
I still go back to the male point of view. A man should NEVER take advantage of a situation like that. Also these players have had it pounded into their head from day one not to put themselves in this position. I understand the whole thing of she used poor judgement. But as a man, regardless of the judgement the woman is using, as a man you have to use better judgement.
The following users like this post: Sooner209
Oh please, you think it's okay to have **** with a woman who is so drunk she may not remember it the next day? Or remember she gave consent?
I don't think that's what he's saying. Implied consent refers to helping someone, "in their best interests" when they can't give consent themselves. Obviously, implied consent would never apply to a **** scenario. Her being too drunk or drugged is not consent to have ****. There's a very blurred line here. I think everyone knows when someone is too hammered to make the choice to have **** or not. Some would take advantage of that. That is very difficult to prove in court. If the gave her rohypnol...that's premeditation.
Imma go ahead and quote myself here because I'm getting a lil bored.
The following users like this post: H82Lose
Okay, whew, I was wondering if I just read it wrong or what. I don't know if a "****" actually occurred or not. I just think it is sleazy as **** to take advantage of a impaired individual.
I agree. If a girl is so drunk she's passed out, that means STOP! Not go. I just hope the truth comes out and everyone gets what they deserve. I don't believe that will happen, but I hope that's what happens.
Please explain where in my post I said that. Because obviously I did not say that. OBVIOUSLY, if a man knows that a woman is too drunk to consent, he should not have **** with her.
But the man usually doesn't know how drunk the woman is. These kinds of difficult cases (usually date-**** cases) seem to almost always happen this way. The woman consents, but she was drunk, and the man didn't know she was THAT drunk, so he thought she really meant it, and the next morning she makes a different decision when sober (I don't want to have **** with him) than she made when drunk. Or he thought she consented when she really didn't because they were both so hammered.
The answer, for BOTH parties, is: don't get so drunk with someone you don't know that well that this sort of thing can happen.
The man may not know how drunk she is, but again I put the responsibility on the man, just because I am a man. Don't put yourself in that position. Again I go back to the many conversations I know for a fact these athletes have had about situations like this
The good news for these players is Mike Gundy should welcome them with open arms
Cough duke lacrosse cough
You know who else is a man? Me, I'm a man.
The following users like this post: Tug Medick
Stay somewhat on topic please.
and AGAIN. save the ****ty rants for OC or TD
Doh! Sorry.
I've been so drunk that I didn't remember having ****. Was I '****d'?
Hey ****hole. That is from the mouth of a criminal defense attorney. It is his opinion based on a paragraph of a report. You think there might be some additional evidence?
And just for your education, one can be in such a state that consent cannot be given.
2 users like Bruno Gianelli's post: McRib, Soonerlife
Okay you meet a woman in a bar. She invites you up to her room and the two of you start making out. You have no idea how drunk she is and she has no idea how drunk you are. During the make out session you touch her tit and she responds by unzipping your pants and and starts smoking your meat. Do you call time out and give her a breathalyzer?
Was your booty bleeding the next day?
4 users like McRib's post: brokebacksooner, Guitardeth, IndySooner, Soonerlife
Yes
Ok ****hat now read if you can where I said IF ACCURATE. Be a hell of a hill for you to climb but I bet you can get there Bucko.
Has to be the funniest GD post in the short existence of this board.I have never in my life attended a cl**** in the practice of law but I honestly think I could get this throw out of court on that statement alone.
When you're sober/semi-sober, it's very easy to tell whether she's able to consent.
The lines blur, along with everything else, when you're hammered.
Like I said as college athletes it is very stupid on their part to even be in that situation. It's something that is drummed into your brain from day one on campus.
True but I know a lady who can probably drink both of us under the table but after her fourth or fifth beer she won't remember a damn thing that happened afterwards. To you or I she won't start acting obviously hammered until she put down a case. So how would you know that if you didn't know her?
Right. If a woman is passed out, she can't consent and it is ****. But if she is only drunk, somehow she can consent to ****, but not to an elective surgical procedure. If a surgeon operates without proper consent, it would be a crime and malpractice.
The following users like this post: Soonerlife
As I said Einstein IF it is TRUE you'll get another great laugh when it happens but it won't happen because if it IS TRUE no prosecutor will bring charges so laugh that off as well.
People that argue on the internet should be euthanized.
*who
4 users like McRib's post: H82Lose, Shooterms, Soonerlife, Tug Medick
Internets would be boring.
What do you do for a living?
I have actually prosecuted cases. So here is my significantly more educated opinion:
The statement that she doesn't remember whether or not she gave consent isn't good for the prosecution, but it isn't a big deal. The police and the DA will consider the witness the statements and the tox/**** kit reports as well. What will Case say? What will Hicks say? What will the friend say? Were they drugged? What was the BAC a few hours after the police were called?
If there is some inconsistecy between the witness statements, or something is found in her blood, or the **** kit is positive, it will not matter at all what her statement was to the police an hour or so after the event.
And don't confuse charges being brought and conviction on the max offense. The police can arrest Hicks for 1st degree ****. He could be aquitted, charges could be dropped, or he could plea all the way down to ****ault.
See, these are things that you don't consider because you don't know what you are talking about. Do you think consent can be inferred regardless of the state of the victim's mind? Fine. That's just a non-legal opinion. But don't tell me how you can practice law when you have no basis for making such statements.
4 users like Bruno Gianelli's post: brokebacksooner, McRib, pmartin50, Soonerlife
.
Board Counselor
This message is hidden becauseis on your ignore list. View Post Remove user from ignore list
/close thread.
So you "liked" a post of somebody that you have on your ignore list?
So, two Longhorns walk into a bar.......
...in search of a farm animal to ****, but the Aggie already left with them.
2 users like Bruno Gianelli's post: greensooner, Mack Brown Clap
Nothing gets past you!
Akin wasn't completely wrong. If you know physiology, then you will know that akin was closer to being right than being wrong.
**** can be consensual ****, but still considered ****(statutory ****). Legitimate ****, as has been discussed in congress, is basically forcible ****.
Now, for the physiology lesson. For men to progress thru the ****ual cycle, there must be a balance and order of the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems. The parasympathetic system cause the erection(think P for Point). The sympathetic system causes you to ejaculate( think S for shoot). If the sympathetic system gets amped up too soon, you get performance anxiety(no erection) or premature ejaculation. Some drugs artificially cause this imbalance, as well. So, if a gun or knife were held to your head, the sympathetic system would override the parasympathetic system and you couldn't get an erection. Your body would "shut that down".
Women go thru similar changes that facilitate pregnancy. The parasympathetic system causes ****l congestion and moisture. This helps with mobility of the sperm and, I believe, with the pH the sperm lives in. If a woman is forcibly ****d or not consenting, then her body doesn't facilite the process. Of course she can still get pregnant, but the odds should decrease. Women, however, have been told to to get rid of the evidence. So, that affects the amount of sperm and time of contact with the sperm which will increase their risk of pregnancy.
Bottom line, akin wasn't completely wrong with his physiology, but he was dumb to say it because 99.9% of people won't know or understand what I just posted.
2 users like soonerintn's post: oucub23, SoonerBounce
FIFY
OK so we ****ume the chick is impaired. therefore no consent it has to be ****.
We also find out that Case and Hicks are impaired , they therefore cannot consent so she has to be charged with **** as well.
And Bounce just thinks everyone is guilty of **** regardless.
Sure is a lotta ****y activity following these teams around.
That's the BS portion of this whole thing. What is the level of impairment that determines when consent can be given? I have had some absolutley fabulous **** while intoxicated. Hell no I wasn't ****d and neither was my partner. It is total fallacy that you cannot give consent when impaired in any way. There is a huge gap between a BAC of .08 and .2. Were there any other drugs present?
There are so many variables here. An actual **** of a woman is a horrible thing, but as has been proven over and over again, there are a large number of bull**** claims made after a giant act of stupidity. I.e. revision of consent well after the fact.
If women cannot give consent when impaired, how can men? To make men responsible wholly for this decision is ragingly ****ist. It is completly ****uming they are incapable of being responsible for themselves.
The following users like this post: EufaulaSooner
Damn, y'all are gonna end up getting us a ban on good drunk ****.
2 users like McRib's post: IndySooner, Jimmon
A little spotting but that was all.
The following users like this post: Tug Medick
First you need to read every comment I made on this to understand and you haven't told me anything I didn't already know except the fact if I were ever charged in a crime where my accuser sat on the witness stand and clearly stated they weren't sure whether they told me it was ok or not to do what I did I am better off hiring the guy who delivered my pizza last night than you to defend me.
Might be the first thing a Texas player has hit all year.
There is already a thread debating this but his remarks have merit
2 users like usaosooner's post: Soonerlife, SoonerMinister
Posting Permissions
