Search results

Cad claimed the burden of evidence needed to be set higher for "too drunk to consent" rape cases (after saying that the bar was already set exceptionally high, mind you). He said this because he believes women who accuse men of rape after a night of "buyers remorse" are given too much benefit of...

So... you give up. I don't blame you. You tried your best. Edit: You quit because you found out those guys didn't go to jail, didn't you? Being a pretend lawyer is hard.

You're right. Many cases of men who were incorrectly identified by eyewitnesses were given. This had no relevance to our discussion about false rape accusations and the supposed flaws of current US rape law. Case was given in a different country operating under different law where jury confusion...

Actually, he was imprisoned for six months (which I did not realize until I looked it up). I'm not implying that it's insignificant, but it certainly wasn't "several years". He was not re-tried afterwards. It was a fucked case (under the circumstances surrounding the change of legal definitions...

If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was not capable of reasonable judgment, then her character is absolutely and completely irrelevant. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was not capable of reasonable judgment, then the accused is found not...

No, you said that we need to "raise the standard of evidence". This is after you said that the standards for proving someone was too drunk to be capable of reasonable judgment are already incredibly high. So I repeat, how would raising the standard of evidence from its already exceptionally high...

So what change in law would have prevented these men from being found guilty? Those were all cases of eyewitness misidentification, right? There's no implication that the victims made up their stories (which is specifically what you were talking about in your last post). In fact, without reading...

According to the prosecutor's guide, an important strategy is to see if the accused was demonstrating "predatory" behavior and to verify if he has been accused of similar crimes in the past. Is this considered "character assassination" to you? I'm actually curious since you were very vague. And...

Welcome to the insufferable cunt club, Arbitrary. Cad and Lendarios send their regards.

For a while there I thought you had taken the high road and left with your dignity. 1) Does just being drunk mean one is not capable of reasonable judgment? Of course not. It's a matter of degree. Certainly, it is possible to be drunk enough to be incapable of reasonable judgment. There's no...

I think it's kind of cute that you assume to know what I am and am not aware of. I was talking about building a case, dude. That entire guide is about considering all the factors to ultimately paint a picture that shows someone who was incapable of reasonable judgment was taken advantage of...

You misunderstood the case law I provided a long time ago. You misunderstood the criteria for establishing that a law exists. You misunderstood the legal definitions of rape. You misunderstood the phrase in which the term "moral rape" was used. Dude, I've been extremely patient with you. I've...

Somewhat related: Hey guys, remember when everybody laughed at me because I suggested a victim might use the fact that she was on her period to show that she had no intention of having sex? Well waddaya know...

Two steps forward, three steps back... What you listed are 3 different definitions of rape. Those 3 definitions were preceded by the line: You're looking at the third definition and assuming it somehow negates the other two. Why would you do this? These are different ways to define rape...

Dude, I honestly don't know what you're getting at. Your "hypothetical" is incredibly vague and pointless. What questions am I "supposed to" ask you? What "argument" am I supposed to "beat"? You haven't made a point yet. Let me put it this way: Can it be proven that she was not capable of...

Like I said, if enough evidence shows that she was beyond the point of "reasonable judgment" AND it can be shown that the guy in question either knew or reasonably should have known, then he's found guilty. For instance, if he was carrying the girl over his shoulder into a hotel room while she...

What the fuck, dude? THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION TO ADD. The discussion has been over for weeks for everyone but Lendarios. All I'm doing now is defending myself from your petty and incredibly childish personal attacks. Do you have a problem with that? Your salary boasts would have more...

If my client has a case (meaning she has given me reason to believe we should be able to prove she was not capable of reasonable judgment), then why wouldn't I take the guy to court? That would be section 261.a.3 (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the...

Awwww.... widdle Caddie's still grumpy because I showed his friends he wasn't a lawyer... If I was in court, those "nuances" might be relevant. In an online discussion, not so much. Again, if the intended meaning was understood by the audience, then communication was successful. "Completely...

Ha ha ha what??? No, seriously, what the fuck?

Listen, dude, every single person here (including you) understands "sound judgment" just fine. I understand that "words have meanings", and I understand that if I was a prosecutor I'd have to be very careful to use the correct terminology, butyouhave to understand that context dictates meaning...

It's hilarious that you think you have some authority to "test me", but I'll humor you anyway (even though I'm going to have to take shit for "responding to stupid people's posts"). If the woman believes she was raped, she can accuse the man of rape. You say "For all you know, she could have...

...He says, as if there were anythingbutinsufferable cunts in this thread.

Fair enough. Being an insufferable cunt doesn't automatically make me wrong, though, and my jimmies get rustled when people use their distaste of me personally to block out the logic behind literally anything I have to say.

This is actually a good point. As human beings, we do give in to our biases all the time. We see something we want to be true, and just the fact that we saw it reinforces our belief. When it comes to Dumar, he was making a lot of the same types of points Peter Joseph makes. These are topics that...

What do mean, "I" keep saying it like it's the truth? It's not "me" saying it, it's the law. We've seen that. Get over it. Also, stop telling me to find cases where somebody is found guilty of very specific, notoriously difficult to prove things. I don't have to find somebody who was found...

I was wrong for X days. I was right for X days. It happens. Except that when I went from being wrong to being right, I didn't get a "That's not what you were saying before, chap." I didn't get a "Hey! You changed your position!" I didn't get a "Well, obviously! Why didn't you say that before?" I...

Ha ha ha! This fucker's still going, I can't believe it. Are you saying that all sex between minors is rape? Jesus Christ, man, how can you say "any law that uses the word consent do not (sic) apply to them", when you've seen CASE LAW that does EXACTLY THAT? It's not my opinion or even my...

Well done, Ridas, you really got me. Here was the next line, which you cleverly omitted. Which means that no, I wasn't arguingthat shitfor days/weeks. IHADbeen arguing that you can't get legal consent from someone who is too drunk for weeks, andTHATcontinued to attract unwarranted contradiction...

About what?

Listen, everybody says this every single time an argument happens. Believe it or not, I am at least as convinced that people like Cad and Jive and Lendarios and Mkopec are guilty of ignorant the blatantly obvious and factual as you are that I am. YouthinkI'm ignoring the factual because you (and...

I again refer youhere. Go back to dry cleaning.

Yes, they're all the same girl.

Fair enough. I will agree that he should have had his sources ready for any relevant points he wanted to bring up. Apparently Citibankdid a surveywhere 57% of divorced couples claimed money problems as the primary reason for their divorce. A researcher found that arguing about money is thetop...

The point is I posted a Peter Joseph video where ha talks specifically about "human nature" and how the environment plays a bigger role than any other factor in determining how we behave. This is what we were talking about, right? Then you dismissed it right off the bat for no reason at all...

Repeatedly been addressed. That conversation has reached its inevitable conclusion ages ago, and it turns out youcan'tgive legal consent when you're too drunk, despite plenty of knee-jerk angry rejecting of that fact from several people here. Of course, after I proved that several times over, it...

I think the informal nature of the debate prevented citing sources, but here is a short video where he goes into more detail about his points and references several studies.