Search results

People v. Ing 65 Cal. 2d 603 Girl says yes: Check Didn't count for legal consent: Check No minors or retards: Check Yes, I suppose your criteria should have been more specific. Edit: By the way, dude, you're being completely ridiculous. I don't have to find an example of someone...

Oddly enough, all that's coming up is Connecticut: 2005 Connecticut Code - Sec. 53a-65. Definitions. But yeah, requiring penetration for sexual intercourse doesn't mean the victim of rape has to be the one getting penetrated. At least not according to anything I've found yet.

Ummm... I think you're still missing something. The person claiming rape in this particular case doesn't have to have actually been raped to prove my point. I'm not arguing that this girl was raped. I never was. I'm arguing that it's possible to get a "yes" for sex (actual consent) and still not...

I have no idea what you're talking about here. No idea. Was that a request for more details? I'll assume it was. (Spoilered for length and legalese)

Yes I did. I found that surprising too. By the way, if Lithose is reading, that particular definition of rape makes no reference to the victim having to be "penetrated", just that an "act of sexual intercourse" has to occur. It uses gender neutral terms, so I guess womencanrape men. I mean...

No, I think they'd have to be fat. And possibly black. Mist claimed to be a racist, but I'm not sure against what race.

*sigh* OK, Lendarios. 2009 California Penal Code - Section 261-269 :: Chapter 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse Of Children, And Seduction Section 261.(a)(3) States that: The problem in the case I presented was the judge didn't explain this section properly. It's a tricky section to explain...

Hmmm... none of them are fat, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there for them to fuck (assuming they're hetero), so... 6? Edit: Missed the guys in the back. 8!

Please stop. You're misunderstanding the case and we'd all like to move on.

If you mean the Tanoomba of over a month ago, you've almost got a point. However, that means for over a month I've been right on the money, but everyone's been too caught up in shitting on me to give credit where credit was due. That's OK, though. I forgive you guys. I even forgive Cad for...

Look who else was underestimated.

Very wrong. Try to keep up. You don't have to be passed out. You can actually say "Yes" and still not have given legal consent. I have proven such by referencing legal definitions, legal documents and case law. Now get off my back.

No, but thanks for showing that it isn't as easy as it looks. My challenge was to find case law that showed that you can not give legal consent when you are incapable of making rational decisions (AKA: When you don't have sound judgment). The case I found stated such EXTREMELY CLEARLY. The...

Alright, I was willing to let all this shit go, but if you insist... I can play this game too.

This is easily the least surprising thing I've heard all day.

C'mon, Adebisi... You are a well-loved and hilarious poster. You don't need shock value or racism to make great contributions here. This is below you.

That's all I ever wanted.

Keep seeing what you want to see. It's much nicer in Imaginationland anyway.

Uh, yeah I did. Oh, so semantics is your new life preserver. You take issue with my use of "able to make rational decisions" because it's clearly the exact opposite of having "reasonable judgment". What a fucking tool. Yeah, so? It still acknowledges that taking advantage of someone who isn't...

A more inaccurate statement has never been written.

Not according to the law. That matters more than an article from Ms Magazine, thank you very much.

Yup, goalposts shifted, right on cue. My claim was that taking advantage of someone who's incapable of making rational decisions due to the influence of alcohol to get them to fuck you counts as rape. I found CASE LAW that makes the EXACT SAME CLAIM. Yes, because the judge made a mistake...

Ask Trollface. He's got the goods.

It's comforting to know I can come here whenever I need a good laugh. I hope you guys never change. Chaos, you are my hero.

Alien sugar cookie glazed with milk, sugar, and nutmeg, using caramel as glue. ?Cookie monsters? made with waffle cone cookies layered with whipped cream, chocolate custard, and ground-up chocolate cake. The artist herself.

Yes and yes.

What are you talking about? Men can be (and are) raped by women who take advantage of their drunken state. This is not a gender issue, it's a consent issue.

FINE. HERE. People v. Giardino (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 454 [98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 315] This is your cue to shift the goalposts.

By the way, Trollface, you still haven't answered my question. Do you acknowledge that taking advantage of someone who can't make rational decisions counts as rape, or is your "1/3 of rapes are committed by women" stat (that you're so proud of) complete bullshit? I'm on your side. I think...

What are you even talking about? I just showed you that,legally, if you're drunk enough to not be capable of making rational decisions, you're drunk enough to not be able to give legal consent. That is most certainly NOT restricted to "unconscious or incapacitated". Difficult to prove? Oh, hell...

I'm not acting like I've ALWAYS been arguing about degrees of intoxication, although my point has always been that getting someone who's incapable of making rational decisions to fuck you counts as rape. Did anybody say "Sure, but that's not what you said before"? Did anybody say...

Wait a second, is your point that it's difficult to prove and rarely is? Is that your point? Because you've constantly been telling me that I'm wrong when I say that taking advantage of someone who's incapable of making rational decisions to fuck them counts as rape. Apparently, according to the...

A: I didn't "shift" the conversation anywhere. That image fit in very nicely with what I've been saying. B: Nobody's "rating" intoxicated "women". There was one woman, and she illustrates what the law means when it says "too intoxicated to give consent". C: It has nothing to do with "would...

Yes, it actually does. It's not as simple as a litmus test (I never implied it was), but through the magic of logic and reason we are able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was too drunk to consent and was therefore raped.

Yeah, dude. That girl is no contest WAY too drunk to fuck. She exhibits several of the criteria THE LAW uses to determine whether someone is capable of giving consent. I'm sorry if this offends you somehow.

Well, here's aprosecutor's guide that shows how to do just that. (From the National District Attorney's Association, not from Jezebel) Here are a few highlights (spoilered for length): Would you look at that? It's almost as if the law acknowledges EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. And...

How do you figure? Is that not the textbook definition of someone who is incapable of making rational decisions? Is that not what I've been talking about?

Alright, let's look at it legally, shall we? From thelegal definition of "rape": From thelegal definition of "consent": (Emphasis added by me.)

If you see this and think "Bingo! Here's my lay for the night!", don't be surprised if you get a well-earned rape accusation the next day.

I grasp that concept perfectly fine, thank you very much. Also, like I've previously stated, even if "getting someone drunk" was a bullshit concept (despite Quaid's testimony), that does absolutely nothing to change the core of what I'm saying: That taking advantage of someone who's unable to...