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.
If a drunk woman tells a man she wants to have sex, 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.
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.
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 sex 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 good news for these players is Mike Gundy should welcome them with open arms
Stay somewhat on topic please.
and AGAIN. save the shitty rants for OC or TD
I've been so drunk that I didn't remember having sex. Was I '****d'?
And just for your education, one can be in such a state that consent cannot be given.
Has to be the funniest GD post in the short existence of this board.I have never in my life attended a class in the practice of law but I honestly think I could get this throw out of court on that statement alone.
The lines blur, along with everything else, when you're hammered.
People that argue on the internet should be euthanized.
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 assault.
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.
So, two Longhorns walk into a bar.......
OK so we assume 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 sex 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 bullshit 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 sexist. It is completly assuming they are incapable of being responsible for themselves.
Might be the first thing a Texas player has hit all year.
Do the police have to make an arrest for charges to be filed against someone for a crime? If not, then I would think some prosecutor is just chomping at the bit to try and make a name for themself on a high profile case like this. I believe this was the biggest reason the Duke lacrosse case went as far as it did. The da was dead set on getting a conviction in a profile case at all costs. On the flip side, it is UT football players, and they do tend to get lots of help from the litigation community down in Texas.